IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that an arbitration agreement can be enforced despite issues of insufficient stamping, and clarified the applicable limitation period for arbitration applications.

ORDER:

Heard Ms. D. Shalini Shravanthi representing Sri D. Srinivas Prasad, Learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Krishna Uppaluri, representing Sri S. Jasbeer Singh, Learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. This application is filed to appoint a sole arbitrator to decide the claims and disputes between the applicant and the respondents in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement dated 27.01.2013 and to grant costs of the application to be paid by the respondents to the applicant.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents through their GPA holder has agreed to sell the flat admeasuring 3500 sq. feet in the ground floor in Block A in Tower No.A11 in the apartment known as ‘Grand Luxus” with proportionate undivided share in the land out of the total land admeasuring 8,830.73 sq. yards with three car parking areas in the 5 cellars and a servant quarter forming part of the premises, by way of agreement of sale dated 27.01.2013 for a total sale consideration of Rs.73,50,000/-. The said complex has to be constructed within a period of 24 months with a grace period of 6 months from the date of agreement. If there is delay beyond 30 months inclusive the grace period of 6 months, the respondents agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20/- per sq. feet for the total extent of flat till the date of delivery of possession of the said property completing with all aspects.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that initially, when the agreement was entered into, the respondents have agreed to sell the flat admeasuring 3078 sq. feet in the ground floor bearing No.G of Block A in Tower No.9, later the respondents after obtaining the revised permissions from the appropriate authorities have requested the applicant to take the flat in Tower No.A11 in the ground floor instead of Tower No.9 in the ground floor and the area of flat is increased to 3500 sq. feet from 3078 sq. feet and the sale consideration was also increased by Rs.8,86,200/- and all the changes were incorporated under a supplementary agreement dated 29.09.2015. In the meantime, the applicant has paid installments regularly in phase manner as per the agreement and finally he has paid a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- on 26.09.2019 and paid total amount of Rs.31,84,800/- to the respondents and the same was not specifically denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The balance consideration has to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed subject to actual measurements as specified in the supplementary agreement. The respondents have to complete the construction of the entire complex in all aspects within 30 months including the grace period of 6 months. However, as there is huge delay in completion of the flat and handing over the same in all aspects as agreed, the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs.56,70,000/- to the applicant.

5. Learned Counsel further submits that the respondents have failed to complete the construction of the entire complex including the said property as per the terms agreed. It has come to the notice of the applicant that the GPA holder of respondents had sold some of the flats which have fallen to the share of the respondents and disputes arose in respect of the same. The applicant also came to know that the GPA holder was trying to alienate the said property which was agreed to sell to the applicant. Though the GPA holder has executed a sale deed in favour of the applicant and gave assurance to perform the part of contract and to complete the said property in all aspects on or before 31.05.2020, he failed to perform the same.

6. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant has paid the total amount of Rs.31,84,800/-, there was no delivery of possession of the flat under the agreement of sale even after the period expired. He submits that though the applicant is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the respondents gave evasive answers and failed to deliver on i