Allowed

Arun S Iyer v. Amar Prakash Developerss Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC8 Nov 2019OP/500/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from a residential project agreement. The petitioner alleged delayed delivery and non-compliance by the developer, who failed to file a counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Appointed Mr.S.Sounthar, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.

Arun S Iyer Vs Amar Prakash Developerss Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

O.P.No.500 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.11.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

O.P.No.500 of 2019

¶7

Arun S.Iyer .. Petitioner
-vs-
Amar Prakash Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
No.42, Rajendra Prasad Road,
Nehru Nagar, Chromepet,
Chennai - 600 044. .. Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an independent Sole Arbitrator to hear and decide the claims of the petitioner arising out of the project Promotion and Construction Agreement dated 23.09.2016.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandrasekar

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This petition is filed seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve

¶12

the disputes between the petitioner and respondent.

¶13

2.The petitioner entered into an Agreement of Project Promotion and

¶14

1/4

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

O.P.No.500 of 2019

¶17

Construction on 23.09.2016 registered as Doc.No.15723 of 2016 with the respondent Company to purchase an apartment in No.M-649 in the 6th Floor, Block No.M, Phase III of the Resdential Project, TEMPLE WAVES with super built up area of 645 sq.ft (including proportionate undivided share in the common constructed area). The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.26,32,113/inclusive of all amenities. The Sale Deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner vide Doc.No.15724 of 2016 dated 24.10.2016. But the respondent failed to keep up the promise as per the agreement even though the petitioner has complied with all the formalities and payments as per the schedule. As per the construction agreement, the respondent had agreed to complete the construction and hand over the apartment on or before March 2017, but when the petitioner visited the site, no work has been completed. Hence, the petitioner had sent Arbitration Notice dated 10.05.2019 to the respondent, but no proper response was shown on the side of the respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶18

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though the respondent has taken time from 17.07.2019, no counter is filed so far by the respondent. Mr.D.Ravichandran, learned counsel seeks further time, but this Court is not inclined to grant further time and hence, the respondent is set exparte.

¶19

2/4

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

O.P.No.500 of 2019

¶22

4.Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court appoints Mr.S.Sounthar, Advocate, No.299, Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai - 600 104, Mob: 9840225978, as the Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. The learned Arbitrator may, after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix his remuneration and other incidental

¶23

expenses. The proceedings may be conducted under the aegis of the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre and in accordance with the Madras High Court

¶24

Arbitration Rules.

¶25

5.The Original Petition is, accordingly, allowed, leaving the parties to

¶26

bear their own costs.

08.11.2019

cse

3/4

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

O.P.No.500 of 2019

¶32

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

¶33

cse

¶34

O.P. No.500 of 2019
08.11.2019

¶35

4/4

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

Arun S Iyer v. Amar Prakash Developerss Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun S Iyer v. Amar Prakash Developerss Pvt. Ltd.

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

Securities of Vs Mrs.Mary Clara Christina

P.v.Ram Vs P.v.Bhavani

Nazeera Afzal Rahman Vs Ms.Preetha Prasad and 2 Others

Subba Reddy Charities rep by Vs a.Sankarnarayan

K.C.Radhakrishnan Vs J.Radhakrishnan I.A.S

G.K.Badrinarayana Prasad Vs Aswin Vijay Prabhu Simon