A non-signatory may be compelled to arbitration if claims arise from obligations within a binding agreement between signatory parties, asserting limits on judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

T.Vinod Kumar, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dt. 05.01.2024 passed in I.A. No. 589 of 2024 in O.S. No. 45 of 2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, dismissing the application filed under Section 5 r/w Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to refer the parties to the Arbitration.

2. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the underlying Interlocutory Application.

3. The case of the appellant in brief is that, theappellant is a maintenance company appointed by the Developer i.e. Kausalya Shelters Limitedin terms of the Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (DAGPA) dt.12.01.2015 entered into by the Developer with the respondent herein.

4. It is the further case of appellant that, respondent had invoked Clause 26 of Development Agreement providing arbitration in relation to disputes arising under the DAGPA with the developer.

5. Appellant contends that, anarbitral Tribunal was formed consisting of Justice Sri P Venkata Ram Reddi, Retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice Sri M.N Rao, Retired Chief Justice and Sri B.V Kumar (Retd. Board Member CBIC) to hear the parties.

6. The appellant contends that, in the aforesaid arbitral proceedings, the respondent herein had claimed various reliefs and one such relief sought for in paragraph 32(ix) of statement of claim filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein as the nominee of the developer from interfering with the possession of the respondent company’s share.

7. The appellant also contends that the respondent was aware of its obligation under Section 21 of the Telangana Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987, to pay maintenance, electricity charges, corpus fund, and water cess, which are not provided by the Developer gratuitously and thus, in case of default of payment of aforesaid charges, minimal electricity supply is liable to be disconnected. The Respondent was informed via email dt. 16.03.2024 that separate electricity connections would be provided upon payment of dues, as per the Development and Supplementary Agreements, subject to the outcome of Arbitration Case No.1 of 2022, which in fact has been conveniently suppressed by the Respondent.

8. It is further contended by the appellant that despite non- payment of aforesaid charges, excluding AC sockets, minimal electricity continues to be supplied. The respondent has not shown any intent to pay even the basic dues, as per the counter- claim filed by the Developer i.e. M/s. Kausalya Infra Projects Pvt Ltd. in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2022: that maintenance charges claimed amounted to Rs.6,90,24,036/- at Rs. 9.50 per sft per month for a period of 24 months from 01.02.2021 to 31.01.2023 and Rs.4,31,40,022/- as future maintenance charges.

9. The appellant contends that the Court below failed to appreciate that, while it is an admitted fact that arbitration proceedings are going on between the respondent herein & the Developer, since the appellant is a nominee of Developer discharging the obligation of providing maintenance ought to have referred the parties in the underlying Interlocutory Application to the Arbitration by noting that, relief sought in para 32 (ix) of Claim Statement filed by the respondent/petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal and the prayer before the Civil Court are very similar in nature, concerning the ap