IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 20.07.2022 Delivered on 02.09.2022 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA C.R.P. (PD) Nos.1641, 1647 & 1648 of 2022 and C.M.P.Nos.8183, 8220 & 8208 of 2022
1. Andal Dorairaj
2. Vidhya Sharathram
3. D.Sharatram ... Petitioners in all C.R.P's.
Versus
1. M/s. Rithwik Infor Park Pvt. Ltd., RR Towers III, TVK Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032 represented by its Authorised Signatory, Priya Rajasekar
2. M/s. Hanudev Info Park P.Ltd., RR Towers III, T VK Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
3. M/s. Rithwik Infrastructure P.Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Priya Rajashekar, registered office at RR Towers III, TVK Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
... Respondents in all C.R.P's.
Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to strike off the petition in O.P.Nos.28, 29 & 30 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner in CRP.1641 of 2022 : Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Senior Advocate for Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For Petitioner in CRP.1647 of 2022 : Mr.Ar.L.Sundaresan Senior Advocate for Mr.Sundara Kadeswaran For Petitioner in CRP.1648 of 2022 : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For Respondents in all CRP's. : Mr. N.Sridhar for R.Bharath Kumar
C O M M O N O R D E R
These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred to strike off the petitions in O.P. Nos.28, 29 & 30 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore.
2. The revision petitioners are the respondents 1,2 & 3 in the impugned Original Petitions filed by the first respondent herein in A.O.P. Nos. 28, 29 & 30 of 2022, challenging the arbitration award dated 27.10.2021 passed in Arbitration case No.9 of 2020.
3. Before adverting into the merits of the revision petitions, it is essential to have the bird's eye view on the facts of the case.
(i) The petitioners are the owners of properties measuring 2 acres 51 cents and 333 Sq.ft., in Savuripalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk,. The first respondent approached the petitioners with a proposal of constructing an IT Park over the said property. The petitioners entered into a Joint Development Agreements dated 24.03.2006 & 06.07.2006 respectively and also a supplemental Memorandum of Agreement on 13.09.2007 with the second respondent. Based on the agreement, the second respondent assured to give 80,175 sq.ft of built up area in the proposed I.T. Park to the petitioners as consideration for transferring 80% of the undivided share of land in the property. In view of the Joint development agreements, the second respondent agreed to pay an advance of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- was paid as an advance on the date of agreement. The first respondent agreed to complete the project within a period of twenty four months from the commencement of construction.
(ii) As per Clause 17 of the Joint Development Agreement, it was agreed between the parties that in the event of any dispute or difference arising between them with regard to the agreement or the development of the subject property, they shall endeavour to settle the same by mutual negotiation / discussion. In the event of failure to arrive at an understanding, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator shall be appointed by the parties and the decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties. The venue of arbitration was agreed to be Coimbatore District. So the parties, in case of dispute, shall be entitled to seek reference jointly and not individually. As per Clause 18 of the Joint Development Agreement, it is agreed that the Courts at Coimbatore will have the jurisdiction in matters relating to the agreement.
(iii) Since misunderstanding has been developed between the parties, the first petitioner has filed a petition in A.O.P. No.808 & 824 of 2012 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator before this Court. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Madras High Court, by an order dated 19.02.2016, has appointed an Arbitrator Mr.V.Sivasubramanian, a retired District Judge, as the Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties and ordered that the arbitration proceedings shall be conducted under the aegis of the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre and the parties will be governed by the Rules of the Centre.
(iv) Since the Sole Arbitrator failed to complete the proceedings within the stipulated time, his mandate got terminated. Hence, the respondents filed an Original Petition under Section 11 of the Act, in O.P. No.362 of 2017 before this Court for appointment of a new Arbitrator. This Court, by an order dated 29.01.2019, appointed a Sole Arbitrator by name Mr.S.A.Sriramalu, retired District Judge. The arbitration proceedings were held at Madras High Court Arbitration Centre in view of the earlier order passed by this Court in O.P. Nos.808 & 824 of 2012.
(v) Both the parties agreed the arbitral proceedings to be conducted at Chennai. Subsequently, the respondents have filed an another Original Petition in O.P. No.694 of 2019 before this Court to terminate the mandate of Mr.S.A.Sriramalu and to appoint a new Arbitrator. This Court, by an orde
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.