IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.779 of 2025 and Original Application No.986 of 2025 INSTA PRECAST INDIA (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED, represented by its Authorized Signatory, M.Karthik, Having its registered office at No.151A, Siva Arcade, Second Floor, Pillayar Koil, Paneer Nagar, Mogappair, Chennai – 600 037. .... Petitioner/Applicant Vs.

D.Vanidevi .... Respondent/Respondent Arbitration Original Petition (Commercial Division) filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to appoint an independent, neutral Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Joint Development Agreement dated 17.09.2022 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent herein.

Original Application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with, selling, disposing of the fourth floor of the project, more fully described in the schedule herein, which forms part of the property.

For Petitioner/Applicant : Mr.Pawan Jhabakh *****

COMMON ORDER

Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.779 of 2025 has been filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity 'the Act'] seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of Joint Development Agreement dated 17.09.2022.

2. Original Application No.986 of 2025 has been filed under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with the fourth floor of the project more fully described in the schedule to the Judges summons.

3. The respondent was served with notice and the respondent also had engaged a counsel, who had filed a vakalath and the name of the counsel has also been printed in the cause list. Even during the previous hearing on 09.12.2025, no one represented on behalf of the respondent and hence, this Court wanted to give one opportunity and accordingly, the matter was listed for hearing today. Even today, there is no representation on the side of respondent. Hence, this Court is inclined to proceed further to pass orders after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner/applicant and on going through the materials available on record.

4. The case of the petitioner/applicant is that they entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 17.09.2022 with the respondent, who is the owner of the property. As per the agreement, it was proposed to engage the petitioner/applicant for the purpose of constructing apartments comprising stilt + 4 floors. While executing the Joint Development Agreement, it was also brought to the notice of the petitioner/applicant that the agreement will also be a subject matter of mortgage created with IndusInd Bank. Pursuant to the agreement, the petitioner/applicant has also tendered a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent.

5. In terms of the agreement, the entire cost for construction of the new building will have to be borne by the petitioner/applicant. In consideration for the same, the respondent will give upto 30% rights over the new apartments in favour of the petitioner/applicant and agreed to transfer to petitioner/applicant or their nominee 30%, which is inclusive of the built-up area and undivided portion of the property.

6. The agreement provided for timelines for completion of the project and as per clause 11, the petitioner/applicant has to complete the project within 12 months from the date of obtaining sanction from the competent authority.

7. The mortgage which was originally created in favour of IndusInd Bank was later assigned to Repco bank by the respondent. The planning permission was granted by CMDA on 18.02.2023 and the building permission was granted by the Chennai Corporation on 31.01.2024. In view of clause 11 of the agreement, the project had to be completed