SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 24869

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
M/s SRISAIRAM PROJECT LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
Sri BOYENEPALLY SRI JAYAVARDHAN – Respondent
Arbitration Application | Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. D. Raghavender Rao
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Rahul Reddy

Disputes arising from agreements subject to arbitration clauses are arbitrable, and allegations of fraud do not automatically negate this unless proven.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Application for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a development agreement - Court found existence of an arbitration agreement and disputes requiring resolution through arbitration - The applicant's claim of fraud by the respondent was not sufficient to exclude the matter from arbitration - The dismissal of the respondent's complaint under the RERA Act does not bar arbitration. (Paras 1, 17, 20)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, engaged in real estate development, entered into a development agreement with the respondent who had rights under an unregistered sale agreement. Disputes arose regarding the execution of cancellation deeds and alleged harassment by the respondent. (Paras 2-4)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that there were disputes between the parties that needed resolution under the arbitration agreement in the second supplementary agreement. (Paras 18-20)

Issues: Whether the disputes between the parties are arbitrable and whether the existence of an arbitration agreement is acknowledged. (Paras 10, 17)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that allegations of fraud do not inherently render disputes non-arbitrable, and the mere existence of an arbitration clause necessitates referral to arbitration unless proven otherwise. (Paras 11, 20)

Result: Application for arbitration allowed; an arbitrator appointed.

Table of Content
1. disputes over development agreements (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. allegations of fraud and non-compliance with rera (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
3. arbitration agreement and objections (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. criteria for arbitrability of disputes (Para 12 , 19)
5. court's role in arbitration proceedings (Para 14 , 16 , 17)
6. appointment of arbitrator (Para 20 , 21)

ORDER:

This application is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes and claims between the applicant and the respondent in terms of Clause 10 of the registered Second Supplementary Agreement bearing document No.10745/2014 dated 30.08.2014 entered into between the parties.

2. It is stated that the applicant Company is engaged in the business of developing of real estate projects. The applicant entered into Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 20.06.2008 bearing No.4941/2008 whereby it was agreed for development of the land admeasuring 1229.50 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.105 to 109 and 111 to 114 in Hafeezpet Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that the respondent herein was also made a party of the said development agreement, as he was holding rights under unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.2007. The original landowners, namely, P. Raja Rao and P. Nagabhushanam, did not execute sale deed in favour of the respondent. However, in order to avoid future complications and disputes, the respondent was also made a party to the development agreement.

3. It is stated that it was mutually agreed and the applicant and the respondent entered into two other agreements viz. Registered Supplementary Agreement dated 09.01.2013 bearing No.1270/2013 and Registered Second Supplementary Agreement dated 30.08.2014 bearing No.10745/2014. The applicant could not carry out the development of the land and thereby, the applicant approached M/s. Vasavi Realtors LLP to take up the development work. Accordingly, the applicant along with original land owner, P. Raja Rao, executed registered Development Agreement-cum-GPA in favour of M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP conveying fresh development rights in favour of the M/s. Vasavi Realtors LLP. This fact was clearly known to the respondent, who, in fact, acknowledged the same under the registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA bearing document No.3324/2020 and document No.2992/2020 executed between the land owner, P. Raja Rao and the respondent. The respondent agreed to execute registered instruments to cancel all the following documents:

i. Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (dated 20/06/2008) bearing No. 4941/2008

ii. Registered Supplementary Agreement (dated 09/01/2013) bearing No. 1270/2013; &

iii. Registered Second Supplementary Agreement (dated 30/08/2014) bearing No. 10745/2014.

4. It is stated that there was a clear agreement between the applicant and the respondent to execute the above documents pursuant to the original understanding reached between the parties and as evidenced by the recitals made in registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA bearing document No.2992/2020. The respondent deliberately adopted several illegal methods to harass the applicant and M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP and had been issuing false legal notices with the sole objective of extorting money from the applicant. The applicant issued legal notice dated 31.07.2020 calling upon the respondent to execute all the necessary cancellation deeds as mentioned above, but the respondent filed to perform his obligations. Hence, disputes have arisen between the applicant and the respondent.

5. It is the case of the respondent that one Mr. P. Raja Rao and his father, namely, Late. P. Nagabhushanam, during his lifetime, jointly executed an agreement of sale in favour of the respondent on 14.12.2007, agreeing to sell an extent of 8000 sq. yards of land out of Sy.Nos.105 to 109 and 111 to 114 of Hafeezpet village, Serilingampa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top