THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.22 of 2011 Date: 02.9.2011 Between: M/s. AB Holding Company ……….Petitioner And N.P. Vijaya Lakshmi & others. ………Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.22 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This application has been taken out by M/s. AB Holding Company under subsections (4) (a) and (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes relatable to the Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 30.6.2004. 2. Late N. Pitamber Naidu was the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing Municipal Nos.4-1-410, 4-1-411 and 4-1-411 and 4-1-414, admeasuring 550 square yards, situated at Abids Road, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. He was also the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing Municipal No.4-1-415, B-2, situated at Abids Road, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. He acquired both the properties under a Will Deed, dated 14.10.1972, executed by his father late N. Srinivas Naidu. The applicant is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act with registration No.740/95, dated 25-01-1995. The partnership firm is engaged in various business activities including construction and development of the properties. Late N. Pitamber Naidu during his life time, executed two Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney in respect of the properties owned by him vide registered document Nos.1865 of 2004, dated 30-06-2004 and 1866 of 2004, dated 30-06-2004. As per Clause No.3 of the Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney, the applicant firm shall secure permission for construction from the MCH (now GHMC) within eight months from the date of the execution of the Development Agreements. Smt N. Dhanalakshmi, W/o.N. Sudhakar, who is the sister of N. Pitamber Naidu, filed a suit being O.S.No.152 of 1995 for partition. The suit ended in dismissal on 10-2-2004. The plaintiff in the suit filed an appeal and the said appeal is pending. N. Pitamber Naidu executed the Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant firm, after the dismissal of the suit being filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.152 of 1995. 3. For various reasons, the development over the land could not be taken up and in the meanwhile, N. Pitamber Naidu died in July, 2008. The applicant issued a notice to the legal representatives of N. Pitamber Naidu on 21.1.2009, requesting them to cooperate with him to proceed with the Development Agreements. The respondents issued a reply taking the plea that the Development Agreements stood cancelled by afflux of time. Thereupon, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause in the Development Agreements and issued a notice to the respondents on 27-01-2011 proposing the name of Sri S. Ravi, a Senior Advocate, as an Arbitrator and called upon them to give their consent. The respondents issued reply dated 17.2.2011 reiterating their stand in the notice dated 02.02.2009. Hence this application. 4. Notice to the respondents came to be ordered on 07.06.2011. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material brought on record. 6. The respondents do not dispute of Late N. Pitamber Naidu executing the Development Agreements in favour of the applicant firm. The plea of the respondents is that the Development Agreements have been worked out due to afflux of time and therefore, terms of the Development Agreements cannot be enforced. Be that as it may, the execution of the Development Agreements by Late N. Pitamber Naidu is not disputed by the respondents. Disputes have arisen between the parties relatable to the Development Agreements. The Development Agreements contain the arbitration clause. For better appreciation, I may refer the Arbitration Clause as reflected in the Development Agreements, which reads as hereunder:- “In case of any dispute arising between the Landowner of the first part and the Developer of the second part hereto, touching these presents, the matter shall be referred to two Arbitrators, one chosen by each of the parties and in case of difference of opinion between such Arbitrators, the same shall be referred to an Umpire nominated by the said Arbitrators and the decision of such Arbitrators/Umpire shall be binding on both the parties.” 7. Though the Arbitration Clause provides for the nomination of one Arbitrator by each of the parties, it is consented by the counsel appearing for the parties that the Sole Arbitrator can be appointed for resolution of the disputes between parties relatable to the Development Agreements dated 30.6.2006. 8. In that view of the matter, the Arbitration Application is allowed appointing Sri Justice R. Bayapu Reddi, a retired High Court Judge, as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties relatable to Development Agreements dated 30.6.2006. He shall fix his own fee. No order as to costs. ____________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:02.9.2011 mrb