Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN
Kalyan Constructions – Appellant
Versus
Madhubasi Vijaya Saradhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arbitration application filed under act, 1996. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts establishing ownership and agreements. (Para 3) |
| 3. counterarguments from respondents. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's observations about delays and notifications. (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. dismissal of application as time-barred. (Para 7 , 12) |
| 6. arbitration clause details. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
K. Lakshman, J.
Heard Mr. K. Ujwal Babu, learned counsel representing Mr. Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mr. K. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.6 is no more.
2. The present Arbitration Application is filed under Section- 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act, 1996’) for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
3. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
i) Applicant is in the real-estate business at Hyderabad and other places.
ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached the applicant and informed it that they are the absolute owners and possessors of Plot bearing Nos.47 and 48, admeasuring 300 square
An arbitration application is unenforceable when filed after significant delay and in acknowledgment of prior cancellation of the agreement, thereby lacking an arbitrable dispute.
The court emphasized the importance of invoking arbitration within a reasonable time and held that delay in invoking the arbitration clause can render the application time-barred.
The court ruled that a registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney can only be cancelled by another registered document, and unilateral cancellation is impermissible under law.
The court affirmed that an arbitration agreement can be enforced despite issues of insufficient stamping, and clarified the applicable limitation period for arbitration applications.
The existence of ongoing disputes under a Joint Development Agreement validates the invocation of arbitration clauses despite assertions of limitation, confirming the agreement's subsistence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
