IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
M/s. Ranganath Properties Private Limited, rep. by its Director and Others - Applicants
Versus
Phoenix Tech Zone Private Limited, (formerly known as Phoenix Embassy Tech Zone Pvt. Ltd), rep. by its Managing Director and Others. - Respondents
Arbitration Application No.72 Of 2022
Decided On : 24-02-2023
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 - Sections 2(za), 2(f) , 2(g),3, and 42(1) - Section 11(6) - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 2(zn) - Construction of multi-storied commercial/Information Technology - Supplemental development agreements - Application who is special power of attorney holder and authorised person on behalf of applicants, besides being one of applicants himself - Applicants are owners and possessors of their respective pieces and parcels of land - Held, Arbitration clause were voluntarily entered into between applicants and first respondent and first respondent by nominating its arbitrator had subjected itself nonetheless issue as to whether dispute resolution provision contained in Section 42 of SEZ Act would prevail over development agreements goes to root of matter Act is a special legislation in contrast to 1996 Act which is a general one. Therefore, Section 42 of the SEZ Act - Application dismissed
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. B.Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. P.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel representing 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 i.e., the presiding arbitrator (umpire).
3. Sixteen applicants have joined together and have filed the present application through Sri Ramesh Chand Kalantri who is the special power of attorney holder and authorised person on behalf of the applicants, besides being one of the applicants himself. Each of the applicants are owners and possessors of their respective pieces and parcels of land in all admeasuring Acs.6.08 guntas covered by survey Nos.122 and 138 situated at Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District (referred to hereinafter as ‘larger extent’). The details of ownership and possession of each of the applicants vis-a-vis their respective pieces and parcels of land are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the supporting affidavit.
4. First respondent which was earlier known as Phoenix Embassy Tech Zone Private Limited and now known as ‘Phoenix Tech Zone Private Limited’ (referred to hereinafter as ‘the developer’) is in the business of executing joint ventures in development, construction of multi-storied commercial/Information Technology (IT) buildings and complexes in and around Hyderabad. In the early part of the year 2015, first respondent approached the applicants with a proposal to develop the larger extent as a common project. In the course of several rounds of discussions and deliberations, it was represented by the first respondent that it would develop the larger extent together with land of adjoining land owners into a Special Economic Zone/buildings for the purpose of IT/Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES)/commercial office space as one composite project at its own cost and expenses for the benefit of the stakeholders. This project would cover land beyond the larger extent as it would encompass total land admeasuring about Acs.15.46 cents covered by survey Nos.118(P), 120(P), 121(P), 122(P) and 138(P) of Nanakramguda Village (referred to hereinafter as ‘larger extent project’).
5. First respondent had informed the applicants vide e-mail dated 04.04.2015 that it would construct 2,00,000 square feet of saleable/leasable area per acre in the larger extent project. Applicants were assured that they would be given 25% share or 55,000 square feet per acre in such saleable/leasable built-up area with proportionate share in the common areas/parking etc.
6. Following the same, applicants and respondents entered into a common understanding vide preliminary agreement dated 06.12.2015 which is referred to as ‘term sheet’. In the term sheet, respondents agreed to give the applicants’ share of 55,000 square feet per acre with proportionate car parking space in the larger extent project. It was also agreed upon that the parties would enter into registered development agreements etc., separately with each of the applicants for getting their respective schedule properties to be developed as one unit in the larger extent project.
7. As per the understanding, applicants formed a society under the name and style of ‘JELL - IT Society’ and got it registered under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2021.
8. Later on, applicants came to know from other sources that the respondents were taking up construction of the built-up area more than the initial plan/understanding. Immediately, applicants through mail dated 02.04.2019 called upon the respondents to maintain the 25% share or 55,000 square feet per acre. Respondents through reply mail dated 03.04.2019 intimated that they would be planning a slight increase in the project built-up area in high rise buildings though they had not submitted any plan for approval. However, respondents agree
Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation
Pravin Electricals (P) Limited v. Galaxy Infra & Engineering (P) Limited
National Highways Authority of India v. Sayedabad Tea Company Limited
The Court clarified that deletion of a party from proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not preclude the invocation of the arbitration clause against the deleted pa....
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 court emphasized the importance of demonstrating the denial or repudiation by the other party when invoking the provisions under section 11(6) of the AC Act. It also highlighted the need to consi....
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 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the disputes, and the jurisdiction of the court to appoint an ar....
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.