JUDGMENT :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

Heard Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor learned counsel for petitioner in CRP No.2835 of 2016, Sri I.V.Radhakrishna Murthy learned counsel for appellant in CMA No.1264 of 2012, Sri A.M.Rao learned counsel for appellant in CMA No.42 of 2013, respondent no.5 in CRP No.2835 of 2016 and respondent no.2 in CMA No.1264 of 2012 and Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao learned senior counsel for Sri Venugopal Julamanti learned counsel for first respondent in all cases.

2. Petitioners in C.R.P.No.2835 of 2016 and the appellants in C.M.A.No.1264 of 2012 are same, whereas, the appellant in C.M.A.No.42 of 2013 is second respondent.

C.M.A.No.1264 of 2012:

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in C.M.A.No.1264 of 2012.

4. Appellants are sixteen in number. They claim that they are the owners of property bearing Nos.1-4-887/1 and 1-4-887/2, admeasuring 1996 square yards situated in Bakaram village of Hyderabad (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’). A Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (DAGPA) on the above property was drawn on 23.10.1999 in favour of second respondent containing signatures of 12 appellants. Thereafter, second respondent in his individual capacity and also as GPA holder of appellants entered into separate development agreement on the very same property on 05.02.2007 with first respondent. The said development agreement vests right in the developer-first respondent to an extent of 60% of the property developed in accordance there with and on remaining extent on second respondent. It appears that some differences arose between respondent Nos.1 and 2 leading to second respondent cancelling the development agreement vide cancellation deed dated 29.01.2007. According to appellants, having come to know that second respondent entered into development agreement with first respondent on 05.02.2007 and on 29.10.2007 the second respondent cancelled the said agreement, they have cancelled the Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney dated 23.10.1999 vide document dated 30.10.2007. This time all the appellants have signed the document. On the same day, they have entered into fresh Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney with M/s.Kura Homes Pvt. Ltd.

5. Alleging that the terms of Development Agreement are violated, causing loss to him, the first respondent invoked Clause 9 of the Development Agreement dated 05.02.2007, which envisages resort to Arbitration to resolve inter se disputes. Hon’ble Justice V.Neeladri Rao (Retd.,) was appointed as sole arbitrator.

6. Before the Arbitrator, the first respondent sought for declaration of execution of the cancellation deed dated 29.6.2007 as illegal, null and void and to set aside the same; to direct the respondents to handover the subject property or in the alternative, to direct the respondents to pay sum of Rs.1,36,38,400/- (Rupees one crore thirty six lakhs thirty eight thousand four hundred only) together with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum, from the date of filing of arbitration petition; and to direct respondents to pay sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) towards liquidated damages. Appellants herein were arrayed as respondents 1 to 16 and second respondent as 17th respondent.

7. The Arbitrator framed 17 issues. In the Award dated 25.9.2009, the Arbitrator rejected the claim against appellants and granted relief only against second respondent. The Award of the Arbitrator to the extent relevant reads as under:

“19. It is a case where R-1 to R-16 had given irrevocable Power of Attorney in regard to share of RW-2 and in Ex.C-2. Hence, RW-2 can be treated as an agent of R1 to R-16 only in regard to share of RW-2 as per EX.C-1 but not in regard to their (R-1 to R-16) share. Hence, there is no force in the contention for the claimant that award has to be passed against R-1 to R-16 by way o