A party cannot pursue arbitration when parallel proceedings are ongoing for the same dispute, as it leads to impermissible concurrent legal remedies.

ORDER :

T. VINOD KUMAR, J.

The present Arbitration Application is filed under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act, 1996') for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.

2. Heard Sri. Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri. Raj Kumar Grandhi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, Sri. C. Raghu learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, Sri. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3, Sri. M. Pramod, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4, Sri. R. Harish, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 and Sri. P. Suresh Kumar learned counsel for Respondent No. 6. Perused the Record.

3. The applicant contends that it had entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (for short ‘DGPA’) on 31.07.2007 vide Document No. 12233 of 2007 with respondent No.5, for development of land admeasuring Ac.10-20 Gts in Sy. No. 16 of Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that at the request of the Respondents, the Applicant herein had paid a sum of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Ninety Five Lakhs only) towards regularization charges for occupyin surplus land; and that the subject land was regularized vide G.O. No. 494 dated 26.03.2008.

4. The applicant contends thereafter it was learnt that the property is involved in civil disputes and for the said reason the Applicant waited patiently for the Respondent to resolve the claims of third parties, so that it can give effect to the DGPA.

5. It is contended by the Applicant that it had belatedly realized that the Respondent with an intention to deceive the Applicant had executed a unilateral Cancellation of Development Agreement – cum – General Power of Attorney on 31.12.2016 bearing Document No. 35 of 2017. The applicant contends that on larning of the above, it had issued a legal notice dated 07.04.2017 demanding the Respondents to discharge their obligations under the DGPA dated 31.07.2007; and that a reply notice dated 20.04.2017 was issued by the Respondents denying the Applicants claims.

6. It is contended that, resultantly the applicant had preferred W.P. No. 12042 of 2018 before this Court seeking a declaration that the unilateral cancellation of DGPA by the Respondents was illegal; and that this Court by order dated 24.04.2018 had granted an interim order directing parties to maintain status quo.

7. It is contended that subsequently, the Applicant had issued the notice dated 06.11.2018 invoking Clause 22 of the DGPA dated 31.07.2007 appointing Mr. V. Vimalanand, as its Arbitrator. This arbitration application was filed by the Applicant as the Respondents vide reply notice dated 22.11.2018 had refused to refer the disputes to arbitration.

8. It is contended that since, the respondents did not come forward to submit the dispute to Arbitration, the present application is filed.

9. Per Contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 raised the following grounds in objection to the present application:

i. Firstly, Clause 3 of the DGPA dated 31.07.2007, the Applicant was to obtain approval from HUDA/Serilingampaly Municipality for the proposed construction, and complete the construction before 24 months from the date of obtaining such permission/approval. However, for reasons best known to the Applicant, no action was taken in pursuance of the DGPA dated 31.07.2007. It is further contended that no explanation is offered by the Appl