Madras High Court
M/S.Emaar Mgf Land Limited vs M.L.Kannan on 24 April, 2015
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 24.04.2015 Coram : The Hon'ble Mr.Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Chief Justice O.P.Nos.816 to 821 of 2014 M/s.Emaar MGF Land Limited Rep. by its Authorised Signatory. .. Petitioner in all OPs. -vs- M.L.Kannan .. Respondent in O.P.No.816 of 2014 T.Arul .. Respondent in O.P.No.817 of 2014 M.L.Palani .. Respondent in O.P.No.818 of 2014 Mohammed Aslam Sharif .. Respondent in O.P.No.819 of 2014 Madanlal Bhati .. Respondent in O.P.No.820 of 2014 G.Rajalakshmi .. Respondent in O.P.No.821 of 2014 Petitions filed under Section 11 (6) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the differences and disputes between the parties hereto. For Petitioner : Mr.Vishnu Mohan For Respondent in OP.819 of 2014 : Mr.Nathami.N. * * * * * COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, who is engaged in the business of construction and development of real estate projects. The subject matter of dispute is the property known as ''Esplanade'' consisting of building at Old Door No.7A, New No 75, Vythianatha Mudali Street, Tondiarpet Village. All the respondents are purchasers of different apartments constructed on the property and the allotments were made for the apartments.
2.In respect of the flats, an agreement for sale and a construction agreement both have been executed. It is, however, the case of the petitioner that the respondents defaulted in making payments and in one of the cases, allotment was cancelled and restored, but possession had been handed over in all cases. The circumstances under which this has happened is stated to be the fact that preliminary inspection was permitted, for which duplicate keys were given, but the residents occupied the premises permanently. Balance amounts are stated to be outstanding, for which a reminder was sent.
3.The construction agreements contain an arbitration clause, which was invoked vide notices suggesting name of an Advocate as the Sole Arbitrator, but no reply is stated to have been received. It is, in these circumstances, that the present petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have been filed.
4.Despite service, none has chosen to file reply and only the respondent in O.P.No.819 of 2014 has entered appearance.
5.These are, thus, cases of no return, where the arbitration clause exists in the agreements inter se the parties, whereby disputes are to be resolved through sole arbitration of a mutually agreed Arbitrator. Such mutual agreement is absent and thus, this Court is called upon to appoint an Arbitrator, the jurisdiction of this Court not being in doubt nor the dispute as alleged by the petitioner, though according to learned counsel representing the respondent in O.P.No.819 of 2014, no amount is liable to be paid and the dispute is being unnecessarily raised. That is, however, a matter to be decided by the Arbitrator.
6.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, by consent, I appoint Mr.Justice K.Govindarajan, a retired Judge of this Court, to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. As agreed by the learned counsel for parties, the arbitration proceedings will be conducted under the ageis of the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre and the parties will be governed by the Rules of the Centre.
7.The original petition is, accordingly, allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(S.K.K., CJ.) 24.04.2015 sra Note: Mark a copy to
(i) The Addl. Registrar-Vigilance Madras High Court Arbitration Centre, Madras High Court Campus, Chennai.
(ii)The Arbitrator, as referred above.
The Hon'ble Chief Justice (sra) O.P.Nos.816 to 821 of 2014 24.04.2015