Allowed

Ms. Maramreddy Kaavya v. M/S. Opus Developers and Builders

Karnataka HC8 Mar 2021CMP/103/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil miscellaneous petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, sought appointment of an arbitrator for a dispute under a Joint Development Agreement dated 16/08/2007. The court accepted the existence of a dispute due to adequate service of notices and lack of concurrence in appointing an arbitrator among respondents. A sole arbitrator was appointed to ad

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. Ashok B. Hinchigeri as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute; all claims left open for the Arbitral Tribunal.

Ms. Maramreddy Kaavya Vs M/S. Opus Developers and Builders — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.103/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MS. MARAMREDDY KAAVYA D/O M V NARENDRANATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3-44, HABSIGUDDA, STREET NO.5, HYDERABAD - 560 007.

¶8

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.507, PHOENIX-B, MEENAKSHI SKY LOUNGE, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 084.

¶9

MS. MARAMREDDY (KEERTHIREDDY) KEERTHI D/O M V NARENDRANATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 3-44, STREET NO.5, HABSIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 560 007.

¶10

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: VILLA NO.5, INDU FORTUNE FIELDS, KPHB PH-7, KUKUTPALLY, HYDERABAD - 500 084.

¶11

MR KETHIREDDY SHASHIDHAR S/O KETHIREDDY RAMAKOTA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶12

¶13

RESIDING AT 3-44, STREET NO.5, HABSIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 560 007.

¶14

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: VILLA NO.5, INDU FORTUNE FIELDS, KPHB PH-7, KUKUTPALLY, HYDERABAD - 500 084.

¶15

MR MARAMREDDY TEJESH S/O MARAMREDDY DEVENDRANATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO 1-2-82, STREET NO.1, KAKATIYA NAGAR, HABSIGUNDA, HYDERABAD - 560 007.

¶16

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: 134, PRASHASAN NAGAR, ROAD NO.72, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034.

¶17

MR YEDUGIRI RAJEEV S/O YEDUGIRI SREENIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT: 30/A, M L A COLONY, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034.

¶18

MS MARAMREDDY SUREKHA W/O M V NARENDRANATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.3-44, STREET NO.5, HABSIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 500 007.

¶19

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: VILLA NO.47, APARNA ORCHIDS, IJJATNAGAR, NEAR HITEX, HYDERABAD - 500 081.

¶20

¶21

MR BOMMAREDDY MURALI MOHAN S/O B RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT: PLOT NO.10/A, KAKATIYA NAGAR, STREET NO.3, HABSIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 500 007.

¶22

MR GUDURU SURENDRA REDDY S/O G RAJAGOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT: PLOT NO.30, VIKASHPURI COLONY, HYDERABAD - 500 038.

¶23

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.201, PHASE - 3B, SUNWAY OPUS NEVILLE, SURVEY NO.154 AND 155, AMENPUR VILLAGE, POST AND MANDAL RANGA REDDY DIST. TELENGANA STATE - 502 032.

¶24

MR GOSKONDA MOHAN REDDY S/O G AGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT: H NO 1-7-14/B, J S N COLONY STREET NO.8, HOBSIGUDA HYDERABAD - 500 007.

¶25

MR SANNAPPAREDDY VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY S/O S SREENIVASULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.2-2-647/118, FLAT NO.301 SRIRAMA TOWERS, CENTRAL EXCISE COLONY, AMBERPET, HYDERABAD - 500 013.

¶26

¶27

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: VILLA NO.77, INDU FORTUNE FIELD, K P H B PH-7, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD - 500 084.

¶28

MS SANNAPAREDDY HYMAVATHI W/O S VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.2-2-647/118, FLAT NO.301 SRIRAMA TOWERS, CENTRAL EXCISE COLONY, AMBERPET, HYDERABAD - 500 013.

¶29

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: VILLA NO.77, INDU FORTUNE FIELD, K P H B PH-7, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD - 500 084. ... PETITIONERS

¶30

(BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

M/S. OPUS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: PLOT 61, PRASHASAN NAGAR, ROAD 72, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 033, REPRSENTED BY ITS PARTNERS

¶33

ALSO AT: SY NO.162P AND 164, AMEENPUR VILLAGE AND POST MIYAPUR, BACHUPALLY ROAD, SANGAREDDY DIST, TELANGANA - 502 302.

¶34

1(A) MR. P.S. REDDY, S/O LATE DR PULLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶35

¶36

RESIDING AT: PLOT NO.333 B N REDDY COLONY, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, TALANGANA - 500 034.

¶37

1(B) MR M T V RAMANA S/O MR MKVSH SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.502, RIDGE WOOD RESIDENCY PLOT NO.110, ROAD NO.10, WEST MAREDUPALLY SECUDERABAD - 500 26.

¶38

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: 8-2-310/B/21, VIDHSH VILLA, NEAR NANDI NAGAR BUSTAND, NANDI NAGAR, ROAD NO.14, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034

¶39

1(C) MR K RAJESHWAR

¶40

S/O MR RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.102, MAHALAXMI NIVAS PLOT NO.7, ARORA COLONY, BANJARA HILLS, ROAD NO,2, HYDERABAD - 500 034.

¶41

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: 8-2-293/82/A/446/1, ROAD NO.20, JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD - 500 033.

¶42

1(D) MR M BHASKARA RAO S/O ANKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT: 6-3-668/10/68, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD - 500 089.

¶43

¶44

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: PLOT NO.J30 AND 31, PACHAVATI COLONY, MANIKONDA, HYDERABAD - 500 089.

¶45

1(E) MR P V ANJANEYAYU S/O MR SADASIVARAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT: 301, TOTTEM, BANJARA HILLS, ROAD NO.14, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 038.

¶46

1(F) MR N ASHOK KUMAR S/O MR ANANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT H NO 1-5-27/1, MARUTHI NAGAR, DILSHUK NAGAR, HYDERABAD,

¶47

TELANGANA - 500 060.

¶48

1(G) MR V V S REDDY S/O MR NARAYANA SWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT: 107/2RT, S R NAGAR, HYDERABAD,

¶49

TELANGANA - 500 038.

¶50

1(H) MR JAGANNATH RAO S/O B M SUDHAKAR, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT: 1-10-36/2/8, 602 LOTUS FLORA APARTMENTS PRAKASHNAGAR, HYDERABAD - 500 016.

¶51

1(I) MR MAHAVIR JAIN S/O LATE BHAWARLAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶52

¶53

RESIDING AT: H NO 7-2-709, POT MARKET, SECUNDERBAD - 500 003.

¶54

1(J) MR AKSHATH POLAVARAPU S/O P PREM KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT: 1-A, ARORA COLONY ROAD NO.3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034.

¶55

1(K) DODDA RAVINDRA S/O DODDA LINGA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT: F1, DOCTORS COLONY, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 081.

¶56

M/S OPUS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT: SY NO 162P AND 164, AMEENPUR VILLAGE AND POST MIYAPUR BACHUPALLY ROAD SANGAREDDY DIST TELANGANA - 502 302.

¶57

ALSO AT: PLOT 61, ROAD NO 3, PRASHASAN NAGAR, ROAD 72, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR P S REDDY.

¶58

¶59

SUNWAY CITY INDIA PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.20, UNIWORTH PLAZA, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. NGIAN SIEW SIONG.

¶60

OPUS REAL ESTATE PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 1^ST FLOOR, BLOCK A PALACE VIEW ESTATE, NO.8-2-120, ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR P S REDDY.

¶61

SUNWAY OPUS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT: 1^ST FLOOR, BLOCK A PALCE VIEW ESTATE NO.8-2-120, ROAD NO 2, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500 034. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR NGIAN SIEW SIONG ... RESPONDENTS [R1, R1(A) - (K), R2, R3 & R5 - SERVED; R4 - DELETED V/O DATED 24.02.2021)

¶62

¶63

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 11 OF JDA-2 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) DATED 16/08/2007 AT ANNEXURE-B AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶64

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

The petitioners who are stated to be the owners of land bearing Sy.No.154, 155, 162, and 164 measuring 35 Acres, situated at Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh, have filed the present petition seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that has arisen between the parties in terms of Clause 11 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 16.08.2007. It is pointed out that the respondents who were required act in terms of the Joint Development Agreement and develop the property have failed in discharging their obligations under the said agreement and accordingly, there exists a dispute between the petitioners and the respondents and in connection with such dispute,

¶67

¶68

the petitioners got issued legal notice dated 08.08.2019 at

¶69

Annexure-'M' to the respondents and the notice to respondent nos.1 (b), 1 (c) and 1(d), 3, 4 and 5 have been served while the legal notice to respondent nos.1 and 2 have been returned. However, it is submitted that as regards respondent nos.1 and 2, notice has been sent to the address as mentioned in the Joint Development Agreement and service must be held sufficient in terms of Section 3 of the Act. Even otherwise, it is submitted that respondent nos.1 and 2 have issued reply notice which would indicate that they were aware as regards to the contents of the legal notice. In light of absence of concurrence as regards appointment of an Arbitrator and also reply sent by some of the respondents, the present petition has been filed.

¶70

It is to be noted that service as regards to respondents has been held sufficient and that fourth respondent was deleted in light of submission that the name of 4th respondent has been changed and the new entity has

¶71

¶72

been arrayed as 5th respondent. It is noticed that there is a Joint Development Agreement at Annexure-'B' and clause providing for arbitration in the event of dispute is Clause 11.1. It is further submitted that the seat of arbitration has been specified as per Clause 11.3 to be Bengaluru. It is also noticed that the legal notice has been served as against all the respondents except respondent nos.1 and 2 and as regards, respondent nos.1 and 2, notice has been addressed to the same address as found in the JDA and presumption under Section 3 of the Act could be invoked as well as the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, and accordingly service of notice is to be held sufficient. Even otherwise, as pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, the said respondents have replied and accordingly, it cannot be stated that they were unaware of the demand of the petitioner and also invocation of arbitration clause.

¶73

The dispute as made out is inferred from the contents of the legal notice as well as the reply notice and

¶74

¶75

further in the absence of any representation on behalf of the respondent to controvert the contentions of the petitioner, the existence of dispute as made out by the petitioner deserves acceptance. In light of arbitration clause and clause providing Bengaluru to be the seat for arbitration, the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶76

Accordingly, this petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is disposed of by appointing Sri. Ashok B. Hinchigeri, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, to enter into the said reference of Arbitration and act as the Sole Arbitrator in the present case in the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

¶77

(i) All claims and contentions are left/kept open

¶78

to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶79

(ii) A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic &

¶80

¶81

International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter.

¶82

(iii) Registry is directed to return all original

¶83

documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

JUDGE

¶86

Np/-

Ms. Maramreddy Kaavya v. M/S. Opus Developers and Builders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Maramreddy Kaavya v. M/S. Opus Developers and Builders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imtiaz Ahmed Cricket -Academy Vs C.B.C.I. Society for Medical Education

Smt Kavitha Vs Sri H S Harsha

Smt. S. Rashmi Vs Shri. Vinay B. J.

Royal Orchid Associated Hotels Private Limited Vs Summer Estates and Builders

Capacite Infra Projects Ltd. Vs M/S Siddha Sheka Developers LLP

Sane Sajana Reddy Vs Adarsha Palm Retreat Gulmohar Residents