Point of law : Arbitration - Whether the stamp duty so paid is insufficient or appropriate is a question that may be gone into at a later stage; Supreme Court would not review or go into this aspect under Section 11 (6) of the 1996 Act.

ORDER :

This common order will dispose of Arbitration Application Nos.54, 112 and 118 of 2018.

2. Heard Mr.Promod, learned counsel representing Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the applicant in Arbitration Application Nos.54 and 118 of 2018; Mr. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant in Arbitration Application No.112 of 2018. Also heard Mr. Hemendranath Reddy, learned senior counsel for the respondent in Arbitration Application No.54 of 2018: Ms.Divya, learned counsel for the respondent in Arbitration Application No.112 of 2018; and Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent in Arbitration Application No.118 of 2018.

3. The three arbitration applications have been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (briefly, ‘the 1996 Act’ hereinafter) for appointment of arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties.

4. Though at the end of a contentious hearing there emerged a consensus amongst learned counsel for the parties, nonetheless to place the three applications in perspective it would be apposite to briefly narrate the facts.

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.54 OF 2018:

5. In Arbitration Application No.54 of 2018, Neela Satyanarayana is the applicant. It is stated that he is a reputed businessman engaged in the business of development of properties, real estate etc., since last many years. Respondent is the absolute owner of a plot of land admeasuring Ac.3-21 in Sy.No.7 (part) of Asmadpet, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District within the jurisdiction of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Circle (referred to hereinafter as ‘the subject property’).

6. Applicant and respondent had entered into a development agreement – cum – General Power of Attorney on 07.08.2014 to develop the subject property and avail the benefits therefrom in the ratio of 40 : 60. Pursuant thereto, respondent had delivered vacant possession of the subject property to the applicant to develop the same. Applicant has developed the subject property and in the process has incurred huge expenses. However, on 02.02.2017, applicant came to know that respondent was trying to enter into a development agreement with third parties i.e. Mr.Srinivas Gupta Tattipalli and Mr. Madhu in respect of the same subject property. Such action of the respondent was in breach of the development agreement dated 07.08.2014. Despite being approached by the applicant, respondent did not pay heed to such request.

7. Clause No.4 of the agreement dated 07.08.2014 says that if any dispute arises between the parties to the said agreement, the parties shall make best effort to resolve the dispute amicably. In the event such effort is not successful, the dispute would be resolved through arbitration in accordance with the 1996 Act by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the parties mutually, seat of arbitration being at Hyderabad and the proceedings being in English language.

8. Applicant also filed an application under Section 9 of the 1996 Act before the Commercial Court-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking injunction against the respondent not to act in derogation of the development agreement dated 07.08.2014. The same was registered as COP No.3 of 2017.

9. A notice dated 14.03.2018 was issued by the applicant informing the respondent that it had invoked the arbitration clause and had nominated Justice C.V.Ramulu, a retired Judge of this Court, as the sole arbitrator. However, there was no response from the respondent. It was at that stage that the present application came to be filed.

10. Respondent has filed counter affidavit. In addition to generally denying the case of the applicant, it is specifically contended that the development agreement dated 07.08.2014 containing the arbitration clause is not a registered document and it is also insufficiently stamped. Being insufficiently stamped, applicant would be debarred from invoking the arbitration clause on the strength of such unenforceable do