1612cao1476.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION [O] NO. 1476 OF 2011 IN MISC.CIVIL. APPLICATION NO. 935 OF 2010. Anand Harikishan Garodia -VERSUS- Smt. Anuprita Nitin Dangore and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2011. The applicant seeks to replace present Civil Application with Civil Application (O) No. 1543/2011 and has filed Pursis accordingly. Civil Application (O) No. 1476/2011 is disposed of as not pressed. --- ------- Civil Application (O) No. 1543/2011. Heard Shri N.A. Vyawahare, learned Counsel for applicant/original non-applicant no.1, 1612cao1476.11 2 Shri S.C. Mehadia, learned Counsel for original applicant no.1 and Shri R.M. Sharma, learned Counsel for non-applicant nos. 2 to 6. On the basis of Agreement to Sell dated 29.11.2006, this Court appointed Arbitrator after hearing all the parties through their respective Counsel. The applicant had already appointed Shri Prakash Kothari, Advocate as his representative and non-applicant nos. 1 to 6 then disclosed name of Shri Kukdey, Advocate. First name of Shri Kukdey, Advocate was wrongly recorded and hence, non-applicant nos. 1 to 6 also got it corrected on 05.08.2011. Thereafter, non-applicant no.1 has filed Civil Application (O) No. 1543/2011 alleging that Shri Kukdey, Advocate, is representative of non- applicant nos. 2 to 6 only and hence she should also be permitted to appoint her representative. Support is being taken from the language of Clause 34 in the above mentioned Agreement to Sell, and 1612cao1476.11 3 description of parties in it. Non-applicant nos. 2 to 6 are the owners of the property and they are shown as vendors and party on one part in that agreement. These vendors have given power of attorney to one Shri Nitin Vinayakrao Dangore, in so far as this Agreement is concerned. The developer M/s. SHALWAK Relators is, shown to be a proprietary concern and it is a party on third part in the agreement, represented by sole proprietor Mrs. Anuprita, who is applicant in Civil Application (O) No.1543/2011. It is not in dispute, that she is wife of Nitin, in whose favour non-applicant nos.2 to 6 have executed power of attorney. The applicant in M.C.A.No. 935/2010 – Anand is a purchaser and is shown as party of second part in this agreement. The dispute is between the purchaser and the developer. Clause 34 shows that it is agreed between the parties that any dispute arising between the parties shall be referred to panel of 1612cao1476.11 4 Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of them. Effort of Shri Vyawahare, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant Smt. Anuprita is, to urge that the developer is not given any opportunity to have its Arbitrator. It is also contended that as there are three parties, three Arbitrators are contemplated and hence there is no need of any Umpire. Perusal of the agreement shows that the developer is also shown as confirming party and confirming party along with the vendors have agreed to jointly sell the property in dispute to the applicant Anand. Thus, before this Court, when application under Section 11[6] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was being considered, there were only two sides and dispute was between two parties. Even today there is no assertion that there is any internal dispute between the developer and vendors. 1612cao1476.11 5 Facts above clearly show that the present application has been filed only to delay the Arbitration proceedings. Application is, therefore, rejected. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd