HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.261 of 2024

ORDER

The present Arbitration Application is filed under Section 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) seeking appointment of arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.

2. In compliance with the order, dated 25.10.2024, learned counsel for the applicant has filed proof of service vide USR No.114353 of 2024, dated 21.11.2024, Ms.M.Madhavi Priya, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri P.Vidhyadhar Goud, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.6 and 8. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.7. With regard to respondent No.9, the cover is returned un- served with an endorsement insufficient address. Sending notice to the address available in respect of respondent No.9 is sufficient in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. With regard to respondent No.10 cover returned, un-served with an endorsement “refusal” and refusal amounts to service in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. With regard to respondent No.11 the cover returned as the “addressee left”.

3. Ms.M.Madhavi Priya and Sri P.Vidyadhar Goud, learned counsel, on instructions, reported no counter and no objection for appointing arbitrator by allowing this application. According to them, there are disputes between the applicant and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 6 and 8, which are arbitrable in nature.

4. Applicant and respondents entered into the development agreement-cum-G.P.A.No.3235 of 2019, dated 28.03.2019 for the purpose of development of 2,100 square yards out of total land admeasuring Acs.2.15.34 guntas forming part of Sy.No.296/lu, situated at Puppallaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. According to the applicant, respondents/developer has to complete the construction in terms of the said agreement. There is delay in compliance of the agreement. Therefore, there is a substantial delay in completion of the said project in terms of the said agreement. They have to pay delay charges, but they have not paid.

5. Whereas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 6 and 8, on instructions would submit that the applicant is demanding an amount of Rs.40/- per square feet and they have agreed to pay Rs.10/- per square feet. However, the applicant is not accepting. Thus, aforesaid facts would reveal that there are disputes between the applicant and respondents. According to respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 6 and 8, they have agreed to pay an amount of Rs.10/- per square feet instead of Rs.40/- per square feet as demanded by the applicant.

6. Clause 20 of the said agreement deals with “Dispute Resolution” and the same is relevant and is extracted below:-

“Any disputes and/or differences whatsoever that may arise under or in connection with the terms and conditions of this DGPA which would not be settled by the parties through negotiations, shall be finally settled by way of Arbitration proceedings by mutually appointed sole Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Such arbitration proceedings shall be held at Hyderabad.”

7. Invoking the said clause, applicant has issued notice, dated 16.08.2024 to respondents proposing appointment of Sri E.Jagannadha Reddy, retired District Vide Judge as Sole Arbitrator. reply, dated 17.09.2024 respondent No.1 stated that the applicant on one hand proposing to cancel the development agreement and also seeking appointment of arbitrator and the same are contradictory. Except that there is no objection to them. The applicant has already filed an application under vide Section 9 of the Act A.O.P.No.6 of 2025 and the same is pending.

8. As discussed supra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 6 and 8, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 6 and 8 have no objection for