The main legal point established is that the doctrine of estoppel and the applicability of subsequent legal decisions can influence the court's decision in arbitration matters.

JUDGMENT :

(Alok Aradhe, J.)

These appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (briefly, ‘1996 Act’) emanate from orders dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Court of Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar (briefly ‘the Commercial Court’) by which the applications preferred by the appellant under Section 8 of the 1996 Act have been dismissed.

2. On admitted facts, common issues of law arise for consideration in this batch of appeals and therefore, we have heard the same analogously and this batch of cases is decided by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, facts from C.M.A.No.315 of 2023 are being referred to.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of appeal briefly stated are that the appellant and respondent No.1 had entered into a Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney (briefly, ‘DAGPA’) on 23.03.2006 in respect of land measuring Acs.10.02 guntas situate across survey Nos.160, 244(P) and 264/1 of Vattinagulapalli Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The relevant clause 25 of the aforesaid DAGPA contains an arbitration clause, which reads as under:

25. Arbitration:

25.1. Tribunal: Disputes relating to this Agreement or its interpretation shall be referred to the arbitration of an arbitral tribunal, consisting of three arbitrators (Tribunal), one each to be appointed by the Parties hereto and the third to be appointed by the two arbitrators so appointed. The award of the Tribunal shall be final and binding on the Parties. The arbitration proceedings will be held only in Secunderabad and the courts situated in the Ranga Reddy District alone shall have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall comply to the arbitration procedures.

4. The dispute between the parties in relation to matters covered under DAGPA had arisen and therefore, under clause 25 of DAGPA, arbitral proceedings were initiated and the arbitral tribunal comprising of Justice (Retired) Vaman Rao and Justice (Retired) A.Gopal Reddy and Mr. L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel of this Court was constituted.

5. In Alien Developers v. M.Janardhan Reddy : 2015 (6) ALD 584 (DB), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the dispute regarding cancellation of registered document cannot be referred for adjudication to the arbitration. Thereupon, in view of the aforesaid decision, the respondent No.1 withdrew the arbitration proceedings on 28.10.2017.

6. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed suit against the appellant seeking relief of cancellation of DAGPA, forfeiture of deposit amount and other reliefs. The appellant entered appearance in the suit and filed an application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act seeking referral of dispute to arbitration in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited v. Regency Mahavir Properties : (2021) 4 SCC 786.

7. The Commercial Court, however, by an order dated 02.06.2023 inter alia held that the appellant since 23.03.2006 did not take any steps to resolve the dispute under clause 25 of the DAGPA. It was further held that the appellant did not even suggest the name of the arbitrator and had no intention for resolution of the dispute by arbitral tribunal. It was held that no justified reason has been made out to refer the dispute to the arbitration. Accordingly, the application preferred by the appellant under Section 8 of the 1996 Act was dismissed. In the factual background, this appeal has been filed.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was justified in filing the application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited (supra). It is further submitted that the Commercial Court ought to have appreciated that the respondent No.1 could not have suggested the name of the arbitrator in a proceeding un