Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Uma Estates And Projects Pvt, ... vs M/S Sri Gayatri Estates And ... on 24 June, 2022
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.29 of 2018
M/s. Uma Estates & Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
8-2-703/A/6/B, Road No.12, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad-500 034, rep. by its Director
Mr. G. Sridhar Reddy ... Applicant
Versus
M/s. Sri Gayathri Estates & Projects Pvt.
Ltd., 6-3-630/1/34, Flat No.34, Ram Sai
Symphony Dwellings, Anandnagar Colony,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 004, rep. by
Director Mr. Badri Vishal Siddarth Reddy,
and another ... Respondents
Counsel for the applicant : Mr. S. Appadhara Reddy
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. K.A. Narasimham
JUDGMENT
Dt.24.06.2022
This application under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act of 1996") has been preferred for
appointment of arbitrator to adjudicate the differences, disputes/claims
arising between the parties relating to the Registered Development
Agreement-cum-Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 28.05.2016 executed
between the applicant and the respondents.
2. Undisputedly, the parties entered into an agreement for construction
of a multi-storeyed residential complex in and around Mangalagiri, Tadepalli,
Guntur District. The respondents-Sri Gayathri Estates & Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
which owns an extent of Ac.5.51 cents in Sy.Nos.230 & 231/A, situated at
Chinakakani village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, offered an extent
of Ac.3.00 cents for development in the above survey numbers and for the
2 HCJ
Arb.Appl.No.29 of 2018
said purpose, a Registered Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable Power
of Attorney was executed in favour of the applicant on 28.05.2016.
3. The applicant contends that it undertook several activities including
submission of requisite applications seeking necessary
approval/clearance/NOC from various authorities and also applied for
conversion of land use by paying an amount of Rs.8,10,000/- towards
conversion charges and land conversion proceedings were issued by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur on 10.01.2017. The building plan was
also approved by CRDA vide proceedings dated 04.05.2017, whereafter the
applicant, in terms of Clause 10 of the agreement, called upon the
respondents-land owners to execute a supplemental agreement. However,
the respondents started raising untenable objections on one pretext or the
other and, in the meanwhile, the firm M/s. Sri Gayathri Estates and Agro
Farms, owners of the land, got themselves converted into M/s. Sri Gayathri
Estates and Projects Ltd. with effect from 11.08.2017. The respondents
also started raising untenable demands and conditions to be incorporated in
the supplemental agreement. The project having not seen the light of the
day, the applicant called upon the respondents to settle the dispute, to
which the respondents replied by their communication dated 02.12.2017,
which is filed at page 103 of the material papers disclosing their intent to
invoke arbitration clause to resolve the issues.
4. In reply to the present application under Section 11(5) & 11(6) of the
Act of 1996, the respondents would contend that the agreement is
incomplete, there is no question of existence of any arbitration clause and,
as such, the dispute cannot be referred for arbitration.
3 HCJ
Arb.Appl.No.29 of 2018
5. Arguments have also been raised touching merits of the dispute
between the parties.
6. Having considered that execution of the Registered Development
Agreement-cum-Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 28.05.2016 is not in
dispute and the respondents, in their communication dated 02.12.2017,
have also expressed their intent to invoke arbitration clause to resolve the
issues, this Court finds it a fit case for appointment of arbitrator to resolve
the disputes between the parties arising out of the Registered Development
Agreement-cum-Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 28.05.2016.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Mr. Justice M. Venkata
Ramana, retired Judge of this Court, is appointed as arbitrator to adjudicate
the disputes between the parties. No costs. Pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
8. The fee of the arbitrator as well as the other terms and conditions
shall be settled by the parties in consultation with the arbitrator so
appointed. Registry will send a copy of this order to Mr. Justice M. Venkata
Ramana in his proper address.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ
MRR
