THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY ARBI TRATI ON APPLI CATI ON No.42 of 2022

ORDER:

The instant Arbitration Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator so as to resolve the disputes and claims raised by the applicant against the respondents.

2. Heard Mr. P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant; Mr. Maruti Rao Srungarapu, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. K.S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. C.Nagaiah, learned counsel for the proposed respondents.

3. In the course of perusal of the documents enclosed along with the Arbitration Application, it is found that there was a Memorandum of Understanding (for short ‘MoU’) entered into between the applicant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 which was executed on 02.11.2020, and on the same day, there was yet another agreement of sale entered into between the same parties. Down the line, there appears to be some disputes that arouse between the parties and in the process neither the agreement of sale, nor the MoU could be executed. Therefore, for redressal of the dispute, the applicant has filed the instant Arbitration Application seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between the applicant and the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to clause 13 of the MoU which categorically stipulates that, in the event of any disputes arising out of the deed of settlement, the parties have agreed for resolution of the same by invoking the arbitration clause.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that that the so-called MoU that has been entered on 02.11.2020 at the first instance is not a valid MoU between the parties. He further contends that the so-called agreement of sale also entered into on 02.11.2020 has been meanwhile cancelled and, therefore, the matter is such which is not arbitrable in any manner. Further, upon subsequent cancellation of the agreement of sale, the property has been sold to the petitioners who have now moved the Interlocutory Application No.2 of

2023 and which stood allowed today.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that there does not seem to be any dispute so far as the agreement of sale at the first instance being entered into on 02.11.2020. There is also no quarrel so far as the MoU being executed on the same date i.e. on 02.11.2020 for development of the very same property. There is also no dispute so far as the arbitration clause being available for redressal of the grievances and disputes in the MoU entered into.

7. This Court is also of the considered opinion that whatever objections that the respondents are now taking in the instant Arbitration Application in respect of the sustainability of the claims raised by the applicant are one which can be looked into by the Arbitrator in the course of arbitration proceedings after hearing both the parties. Further, those objections cannot be delved into by this Court in the course of deciding a petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Act where the primary thing to be noted is whether there is an agreement between the parties and whether the agreement is an arbitration clause which is not in dispute.

8. Upon seeking a suggestion as to who could be appointed as an Arbitrator, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 proposed Honourable Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram, former Judge of this High Court to be nominated as an Arbitrator for redressal of the disputes, and the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant does not have any objection to the same. Accordingly, this Court appoints Honourable Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram, former Judge of this High Court to act as an Arbitrator and to pass appropriate award in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Rest of the contentions which the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has rais