JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Balaji Medamalli)

1. The C.O.M.C.A., is filed by the appellant/ petitioner against the order dated 01.12.2025 passed in C.A.O.P.No.11 of 2025 on the file of Special Judge For Trial and Disposal Of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam, whereby the Special Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity ‘the Act’) on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner filed application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 (for brevity referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking an injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or encumbering, and also to restrain the respondent and its men from developing or making construction in the petition schedule property and also seeking further direction to deposit Rs.9,20,000 (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Twenty Thousand Only) before the Commercial Court, pending adjudication, of the arbitration proceedings.

3. Petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner of petition schedule property to an extent of Ac.4.45Cents in Sy.Nos.139/2, 143/2,143/4 and 143/5 of Samanasa Village of Amalapuram Mandal of East Godavari District and she entered into a registered Development Agreement - Cum - General Power Of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as DAGPA) vide Document No. 6957/2019 dated 29.10.2019 with the respondent herein for development of petition scheduled property, with the commercial terms as mentioned in there. It is further stated that the respondent herein also entered into agreement of sale dated 27.07.2022 with the appellant/petitioner in respect of sale of 16 plots that fell to the share of the petitioner for a total consideration of 9,20,00,000/-.

4. It is further alleged that the respondent committed breach of the contract by deliberately delaying the construction and contravening the terms of the DAGPA dated 29.10.2019 as well the Agreement of Sale dated 27.07.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner contends that she requested the respondent to complete the construction and to allot her share. A notice was also issued to the respondent on 01.04.2023 about the breach of development agreement as well as allocation agreement. The respondent gave reply on 26.04.2023, with all baseless allegations and the respondent did not deny the fact that the project was not completed. The petitioner has also sent an email dated 15.04.2023 to the respondent seeking cancellation of Agreement of Sale dated 27.07.2022 on account of the respondent’s failure to handover possession of the development share as per the DAGPA and Allocation Agreement. Subsequently, a legal Notice was also issued on 31.08.2024 to the respondent to execute the sale deeds in accordance with the Agreement of Sale dated 27.07.2022.

5. The petitioner asserts that the respondent failed to complete the project within 42 months as agreed upon from the date of approval from the authorities i.e., 17.03.2025. As the respondent is not evincing interest in development of petition schedule property and only concentrating on selling his share of units, which may result in harm and injury, a notice has been issued to the respondent terminating the DAGPA and nominated Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodandaram as an Arbitrator. Hence, an application seeking order of restraint against the respondent from alienating the petition schedule property has been filed seeking directions under Section 9 of the Act.

6. The respondent denying the averments of the petition, filed counter stating that the project involves construction of residential units and does not contemplate or involve any commercial activity relating to immovable property and hence it is not a commercial dispute within the meaning of section 2(1)(C)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act. Further, it was contended that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Secti