JUDGMENT

M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - In these two appeals, common order dt.29.11.2019 in A.O.P.Nos.1 of 2019 and 3 of 2019 passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') by the XV Additional District Judge-cum-II Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, are challenged.

2. The appellant in these appeals filed under Section 37 of the Act, is the respondent in A.O.P.No.1 of 2019 and the applicant/petitioner in A.O.P.No.3 of 2019.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in these appeals.

4. The appellant is a Developer and respondent is the owner of land in Sy.No.21 of Khajaguda village, Serilingampally Manal, Ranga Reddy District of extent Ac.5.38 gts.

5. The respondent had sold about Ac.3.21 gts out of the said land as plots to various persons and about Ac.0.09 gts was transferred by respondent to his brother and 0.16 gts was transferred by respondent to his brother's wife.

6. After negotiations, separate Development Agreements dt.05.09.2005 (registered Doc.No.13140/2005) and 21-09-2005 (registered Doc.No.14049/2005) wee entered into by respondent's brother and wife with the appellant for development of the said land by building residential apartments etc., and it is alleged by appellant that a sum of Rs. 30,50,000/- was paid as refundable deposit to them.

7. Appellant also contends that respondent received on various dates Rs. 1,46,10,000/- as advance repayable with interest from the appellant with a promise to bring all the plot owners under the development scheme as agent and partner of the appellant; that respondent obtained separate Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney from all the individual plot owners, who had purchased the plots from him, and a Memorandum of Understanding dt.10-05-2006 was entered into between the parties. According to the appellant, respondent was offered 24% share of the developed area and he also was agreed to join as partner in the Project. Subsequently, another Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dt.14.05.2006 (Doc.No.10975/2006) was entered into between the parties in respect of the land acquired by respondent as agent/partner on behalf of and for the purpose of appellant wherein the respondent acted as G.P.A. holder of the plot owners in the said Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney for the purpose of binding them.

8. There is also a reference to single and composite Supplementary Agreement dt.26.07.2007 earmarking the shares under all the Development Agreements including the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (DGPA) dt. 14.05.2006, under which different parts of 'A' schedule property were brought under the Development Scheme.

9. It is also stated that a further Supplementary Agreement dt.23.08.2008 being Doc.No.6904/2008 was entered into to include an extent of Ac.0.02 gts. abutting the 'A' schedule land which was obtained from the State Government subsequently in 2008.

The contentions of the appellant

10. According to the appellant, the respondent did not provide any land for access road as required under Clause-3 of the DGPA dt.14.05.2006, and on 10.01.2008, the Cyberabad Development Authority permitted laying of road on 24.03.2008 after the Government issued a Memo on 24.03.2008. But before the appellant could lay the road, the Hon'ble Lokayukta suspended the order on 11.06.2008 and later modified it only on 26.09.2008 directing construction of two additional culverts; that appellant spent Rs. 40.00 lakhs to lay the culverts and a road and thereafter the Lokayukta closed the case on 27.01.2009; for laying a road, the appellant had to spent Rs. 1.00 crore and it took 3 years; that on account of the Lokayukta case, permission obtained by the appellant from various Departments in 2007 including Fire Services stood suspended and after the Lokayukta's disposal of the matter, the appellant submitted application for additi