HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
BOTTA NAGA CHIRANJEEVI REDDY VIJAYAWADA – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMAD JAMSHEED VIJAYAWADA & 6 OTHERS – Respondent
ARBAPPL 106/2015
##PAGE1##
2025:APHC:61292
APHC010033002015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench
Sr.No:-13
AT AMARAVATI
[3441]
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 106 of 2015
Botta Naga Chiranjeevi Reddy ...Applicant
Vs.
Mohammad Jamsheed and others ...Respondents
**********
Advocate for Applicant: Mr. Shivam Kunal appearing vice
Mr. P. Shashi Kiran
Advocate for Respondents: Mr. T. N. M. Ranga Rao
CORAM : T HE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
DATE : 26th December, 2025.
P C :
This is an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking reference of the disputes for adjudication to an
arbitrator.
2. The applicant claims that he is a builder and is engaged in the
construction business. It is stated that he entered into a Development
Agreement, dated 08.08.2008, with the respondents to develop a commercial
complex over land belonging to them for better economic returns.
3. According to the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement
dated 08.08.2008, the parties had agreed that the applicant would deposit with
##PAGE2##2
2025H:CAJP HC:61292
ARBAPPL_106_2015
the respondents an amount of Rupees One Crore as a refundable security
deposit which was to be refunded in two installments without interest, i.e.
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) within 15 days on receipt of notice
of completion of fourth slab and the remaining 50% i.e. Rs.50,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) within 15 days on receipt of notice of the taking
over the possession from the applicant, failing which the respondents were
liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum from the date of accrual. The said
amount according to the applicant was paid through various cheques.
4. The case of the applicant is that after taking over possession of the
vacant land, a Supplementary Development Agreement-cum-General Power
of Attorney, dated 21.01.2009, was executed before the Sub-Registrar,
Patamata, Vijayawada. The project, according to the applicant, was completed
and refund of the security amount demanded was refused.
5. For facility of reference, Clause 28 of the Agreement dated 21.01.2009,
is reproduced hereunder:
“28. In case any disputes arise between the parties hereto
touching these presents the matter shall be referred to the
Arbitrators one chosen by each party and in the case of any
difference of opinion between such Arbitrators shall nominate a
common umpire and their award shall be final and abide on
both the parties and the relevant provisions of Arbitration act
shall apply.”
##PAGE3##3
2025H:CAJP HC:61292
ARBAPPL_106_2015
It is not out of place here to mention that the arbitration clause supra
was contained in the Development Agreement-cum-G.P.A., dated 21.01.2009,
while there was no such arbitration clause in Development Agreement dated
08.08.2008.
6. A notice, dated 17.08.2013, is stated to have been served upon the
respondents, invoking the arbitration clause. Since the notice did not elicit
requisite response, the present application is filed.
7. The stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the Agreement
dated 08.08.2008, which contained the clause with regard to refundable
security amount with interest @ 24%, was an Agreement which did not
contain any arbitration clause, and further that the Agreement dated
21.01.2009, was not a Supplementary Agreement but an independent
Agreement, where the refundable security deposit was only to an extent of
Rupees Five Lakhs, which was to be paid in two installments i.e.
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) within 15 days of
receipt of notice of completion of fourth floor and the remaining 50% i.e.
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) within 15 days of taking
over possession from the Second Party-Applicant herein and further that it
was only upon failure to refund the security deposit within the stipulated time
that the applicant would be entitled to claim interest @ 24% per annum.
8. The existence of the arbitration clause, however, in the agreement
dated 21.01.2009, is not denied.
##PAGE4##4
2025H:CAJP HC:61292
ARBAPPL_10
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.