Allowed

Saravana Aaawas Pvt. Ltd., v. Smt. Parvathaneni Vijaya Rajyalakshmi

Telangana HC22 Apr 2013ARBAPPL/39/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held it just and necessary to appoint an arbitrator to decide disputes regarding performance of a development agreement, despite challenges to its conclusion and the identity of the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri N. Jaganadha Rao, retired District Judge, Vishakapatnam, as arbitrator to resolve disputes.

Saravana Aaawas Pvt. Ltd., Vs Smt. Parvathaneni Vijaya… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.39 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Arbitration application was filed under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act) for appointment of an arbitrator to decide the disputes that have arisen with regard to the performance of a contract, which was entered into between the applicant and respondent Nos.1 and 2. The parties have entered into an agreement for development of the site belonging to the 1^st respondent and it appears that for want of necessary permissions the development activity could not be taken up. The 2^nd respondent is said to have been received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) which was said to have been paid under two cheques. The applicant was also making a claim towards other expenditure. In fact, the agreement, as such, is not disputed by the 2^nd respondent and it is his contention that there is no concluded agreement and the agreement does not show that the 1^st respondent has signed it and the date is also silent and therefore the appointment of an arbitrator is not warranted.

¶5

So far as, the 1^st respondent is concerned, there is no signature by her and therefore she cannot be made as a party to the arbitral dispute and consequently the appointment of an arbitrator against her cannot be considered. So far as, the 2^nd respondent is concerned, it is not in dispute that the work could not be completed and according to him, the contract is not concluded and there is no application, in fact, there is no specific

¶6

denial about the particulars of the money received by him. Though the contract does not actually bear the date on which it was executed, oral evidence can be adduced with regard to the date of entering into the contract when it is not inconsistent with the terms of the contract. Therefore, on this ground also it cannot be concluded that the contract is not clear. So far, the dispute is concerned, the applicant is claiming higher amount than what was said to have been actually received by the 2^nd respondent. In fact, the very nature of the contract is with regard to the enforceability and the liability of the 2^nd respondent for refund are the questions, which are based on the agreement between the parties and since the agreement under Clause 15 provides for resolution of the disputes by way of an arbitrator within the jurisdiction at Vishakapatnam. I feel in the nature of the circumstances, it is just and necessary to appoint an arbitrator who shall decide all the disputes even with regard to the nature of the concluded contract and the enforceability etc.

¶7

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent contends that the petition was filed by the company, whereas the contract was shown to have been entered into between Mr. B. R. Ramesh Naidu and the respondents, therefore the petition is not maintainable. This is also a decision, which has to be taken by the arbitrator by considering the material evidence or documents and the intention of the parties.

¶8

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, Sri N. Jaganadha Rao, retired District Judge, Vishakapatnam, is appointed as an arbitrator to resolve the disputes and he shall be paid fee etc., as fixed by him.

¶9

Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed.

¶10

_________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶11

Date: 22.04.2013 Ska

Saravana Aaawas Pvt. Ltd., v. Smt. Parvathaneni Vijaya Rajyalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravana Aaawas Pvt. Ltd., v. Smt. Parvathaneni Vijaya Rajyalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Vidyuth Steels Workers and Employees Union, Vs M/s. Vidyuth Steels Ltd., (In Prov. Liqn.)

S. Sijatha Laxmi, Vs B. Sumathi Devi

Laxminivas jaju Vs Smt.Jamuna bai Jaju

M/s.Ramani IceCream Company Ltd, Vs Mrs.Vijaya Reddy

M/s Arudra Constructions Vs Salar Jung Museum

M/s Murari Tradingf Company, Vs Jsw Ispat Limited