An arbitration application is unenforceable when filed after significant delay and in acknowledgment of prior cancellation of the agreement, thereby lacking an arbitrable dispute.

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 yards each, making a total extent of 600 square yards in Survey Nos.13 and 14, situated at Ammuguda Village, Valluvar Nagar under Kapra Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, presently Medchal – Malkajgiri District by virtue of two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.5710 and 5711 of 1998, both dated 09.12.1998.

iii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached the applicant in the month of September, 2008 with a proposal to develop the said open plots for construction of residential complex for mutual benefit of both the parties. Accordingly, they have entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (DAGPA) bearing document No.4610 of 2008, dated 08.09.2008 in respect of the aforesaid plots. As per the recitals of the said DAGPA, the applicant has to construct entire complex with his own funds and the sharing ratio of super built-up area shall be 50% to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and remaining 50% built up area to the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant spent huge amount to the extent of Rs.6.00 lakhs for development of the said land in the year 2008-09.

iv) As per the terms of DAGP, respondent Nos.1 and 2 declared themselves as absolute owners of the aforesaid lands and it is free from all encumbrances, attachments, disputes and claims from third parties. If any disputes arose at the time of construction, respondent Nos.1 and 2 agreed to indemnify the applicant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have handed over the peaceful possession of the subject land to the application.

v) At the time of development work on the subject land, one Mrs. K.H. Sukanya tried to interfere with the construction and filed a suit in O.S. No.1744 of 2009 seeking perpetual injunction against the applicant and respondent Nos.1 and 2, wherein she had obtained interim injunction initially. However, the said suit was dismissed for default on 24.09.2019 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. Thereafter, she filed an application for restoration of the said suit along with delay petition and the same are pending.

vi) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also filed a suit in O.S. No.832 of 2011 against the said K.H. Sukanya for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the subject land and the same was decreed ex parte on 17.10.2014. The said K.H. Sukanya filed I.A. No.375 of 2016 to condone the delay of 417 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 17.10.2014 and the same was allowed on 28.04.2017 by learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed C.R.P. and later carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP, which is pending.

vii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also filed O.S. No.68 of 2018 for perpetual injunction against the applicant and the same was di