IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Chelamatla Krishna Reddy S/o Late C.H. Ranga Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Kagithapuram Ravinder Reddy S/o K. Damodar Reddy – Respondent
Arbitration Application No. 77 of 2020
Decided On : 08-06-2022
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Companies Act, 1956 - Section 11 (6) - Appointment of arbitrator -Applicant and respondent No. 1 had also purchased land individually vide sale deeds, the details of which are mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of the supporting affidavit. It is stated that the above two properties were jointly purchased by the applicant and respondent No. 1 by sharing 50% of the sale consideration - Whether there is any arbitration agreement by and between the parties - Held, - What are factors for deciding as to whether there is an arbitration agreement is next question - Resolution to that is simple it needs to be seen if agreement contains a clause which provides for arbitration pertaining to the disputes which have arisen between parties to agreement - There is an arbitration agreement between the parties; there is a dispute between the parties; such dispute could not be resolved in terms of the LLP agreement; therefore, the dispute is required to be referred to arbitration to be conducted by a sole arbitrator - Disposed of -
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr.Ch.Krishna Reddy, M/s. Chandrasen Law Offices, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This application has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (briefly ‘the 1996 Act’ hereinafter) for appointment of arbitrator.
3. According to the applicant, he and respondent No. 1 were promoters and directors of a company called M/s.RKR Builders and Promoters Private Limited, which was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on 09.12.2002. Principal objective of the aforesaid company was to acquire lands, develop the plots and make construction thereon. Company had purchased lands under two registered sale deeds bearing No. 9238 of 2003 dated 04.08.2003 and bearing No. 10961 of 2003 dated 05.09.2003, details of which are mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of the supporting affidavit.
4. Apart from the above two sale deeds, applicant and respondent No. 1 had also purchased land individually vide sale deeds bearing No. 9730 of 2002 dated 28.10.2002 and bearing No. 9992 of 2002 dated 28.10.2002, the details of which are mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of the supporting affidavit. It is stated that the above two properties were jointly purchased by the applicant and respondent No. 1 by sharing 50% of the sale consideration. All the above four sale deeds were registered documents.
5. Applicant and respondent No. 1 had entered into an unregistered partition deed dated 06.11.2015 agreeing to divide the entire properties including those belonging to M/s.RKR Builders and Promoters Private Limited in the manner provided in paragraph No. 4 of the supporting affidavit. It was also agreed in the partition deed that applicant would pay an amount of Rs.62,85,000-00 to respondent No. 1 for the alleged expenses incurred by respondent No. 1. In terms thereof applicant has paid Rs.40,00,000-00 to respondent No. 1 in presence of three persons who were mediating between applicant and respondent No. 1.
6. Thereafter, the company i.e. M/s.RKR Builders and Promoters Private Limited was converted into a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) on 24.11.2016.
7. Applicant paid the balance amount of Rs.30,00,000-00 to the three private mediators which included interest of Rs.7,15,000-00. Thereafter, applicant and respondent No. 1 representing the LLP sold certain plot of land for total consideration of Rs.2,72,50,000-00.
8. After the above transaction, a supplemental deed dated 23.11.2019 was executed. It was agreed between the applicant and the first respondent that an amount of Rs.2,21,78,730-00 should be paid to the retiring partner i.e. the applicant which was equivalent to the applicant’s shareholding, right, title and interest in the LLP. However, respondents did not handover the cheque for such amount to the applicant.
9. The entire transactions with regard to the immovable property of the LLP were filed before the Registrar of Companies. Based on the partition deed dated 06.11.2015, applicant was to be paid the sale consideration amount of the property sold by the LLP. After retirement of the applicant, respondent No. 2 being the wife of respondent No. 1 came to be inducted as a partner in the LLP.
10. Applicant has paid Rs.2,22,00,000-00 to the first respondent as agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 05.08.2007. The manner of payment has been described in paragraph No. 8 of the supporting affidavit. According to the applicant, respondent Nos.1 and 2 had cheated him and therefore he would like to cancel the supplemental deed dated 23.11.2019 and continue as partner of the LLP. Applicant issued notice dated 20.08.2020 invoking the arbitration clause No. 40 in the LLP agreement dated 24.11.2016.
11. Applicant also filed a petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy district, which was numbered as OP No. 25 of 2020. It is stated that learned Court below had granted injunction on 11.09.2
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 267 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 117
An LLP is not a third party to its own LLP Agreement and can be a party to arbitration proceedings despite not being a signatory.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in appointing an arbitrator. The cour....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of minimal judicial intervention in the arbitral process, emphasizing the competence of the arbitrator to decide all preliminary issu....
The main legal point established is the court's reliance on the unequivocal admission of the respondent and the presence of his signature on the Deed of Retirement to affirm the existence of the arbi....
The referral court's scope under Section 11(6-A) is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. A formal notice under Section 21 is not mandatory if the respondent has prior kno....
Arbitration clauses in prior agreements continue to bind new partners despite subsequent agreements lacking such clauses; issues about stamp duty deficiencies can be raised in arbitration.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.