One CC to siri v. Seetharama Avadhani

2. Sri M. Rajashekhar, S/o Late Lachaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, Rrio H. No. 2-2-22l4,Flal No. 302, lndra Heights, DD Colony Bag, Amberpet, Hyderabad. Arbitration Application filed under Section 1 1(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the Petitioner and the Respondent in respect of or arising of the MOU daled 28-02-2022. Lest serious loss will ensue to the Petitioner. ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents enclosed herewith. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V. Seetharama Avadhani Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None Appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri S. Bhooma Goud The Court made t'1e following: ORDER I I (-, HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K. LAIGHMAN ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.257 of 2o24 ORDER: The present Arbitration Application is filed under Section 1l (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2OO6 (for short "the Act") seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties

2. In compliance with the order, dated 25.lO.2024,learned counsel for the applicants has filed proof of service utde U.S.R No.1 16548 of 2024, dated 26.1I.2024 along with postal tracking report. Perusal of the same would reveal that the notice sent to respondent No.1 is returned un-served with an endorsement t-rnclaimed'. Notice sent to the address of respondent No.1 available with the petitioner is suff,rcient in terms of Section 27 of th-e General Clauses Act. Therefore, despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 1

3. It is the specific contention of the applicants herein that respondent No.2 and one Sri K. Suri have entered into a ' memorandum of understanding, dated 25.02.2021 with I I AA 257 2024 2 respondent Nc.1 with regard to the sale of land adn:Leasuring Acs.5.00, including 24,2OO Sq.yds in Sy.No.79Z,82 and 197/lO3 situzrted at Mokila Village, Shankarpaliv Mandal, Ralga Reddl District. Total sale consideration a greed is Rs.37,50 0O,0tr0 ( Thirty Seven Crores Fifty l_akhs only) i.e., Rs.7.50,00.00[) (Seven Crores Fifty Lakhs only) .p,gp a61s. Accordirgll', r espondent No. t has paid an arn cunt of Rs.4,50,00,00C ald agreed to pay the remaining arr ount on or before 25.1)8.2027. Basing on the said Memorarrdum of Understa,ndinll respondent No.1 has offered Villa No.22, admeasuring 266 square yards with built up area of 3233 square leet t<, the applicants herein for total balatrce sale consideration of Rs. 1,69,78,000/-. They have also entered Memoran<lum r>f Understanding, dated 28.O2.2022 and paid the entire sale consideration. Respondent No.1 agreed to completc the crrnstruction within thirty six (36) mont.rs from the date of saiC agreement of sale with grace period ct six (6) months. Respondent No.1 has not completr.:d the construction v,'ir.hin the aforesaid period and not delivt,red the physical possession in favour of the petitioners. Th,erefore, there arr: dispu tes between the applicalts and resJrondent KL,J AA 257 2024 J No.1 with regard to the said Memorandum of Understanding, dated 28.02.2022.

4. Invoking clause No.12 of the memorandum of understanding, the applicants have issued notice, dated O8.Og.2023 to respondent No.1. The applicants have not frled proof of seryice on respondent No. 1. They have filed postal receipt. But, they have not filed proof of service of the said notice on respondent No.1. Therefore, they have filed present application to appoint arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between applicants and respondent No.l.

5. Whereas, Sri S. Bhooma Goud, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that the signature of respondent No.2 on Memorandum of Understanding, dated 25.02.2021 was forged. Therefore, he has lodged a complaint lrith the police. However, he will take action against respondent No.1 herein.

6. As rightly contended by Sri S. Bhooma Goud, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 is not party to the Memoraldum of Understanding, dated \ \ 4 KL, AA 257 2024 (l

25.02.2021 , *'hich is between applicants and re-.'pondent No.1.

7. Perusal cf record would reveal that the appiicants have entered intc Memorandum of Understanding. dated

28.02.2022 rvith respondent No.1 for purchase of Villa without verifyil-rg the documents and without conducting due diligence, thel' have paid huge amount of Rs. 1,69,7O,{)00/- by way of r:ash. J'he said action of the applicants is in violation of the circ:ulars issued by the RBI and the provisions of the income ta-x Act. 1961 .

8. During ttre course of hearing, it is brought to tl'Le notice of this (lourt t rat the subject property i.e., frve acres, of land in Sv.No197 ir; under attachment by the police ut rder the provisions ol the Telangana Public Safety (M easures) Enforcement .\ct, 20 13. Even then, the applicants irled the present applir:irtion to appoint arbitrator to adjudi,r:ate the disputes betue en the applicants ald respondent No.2. It is also brought ro the notice of this Court that the pa:.tners of respondent Nc,.1 are in judicial custody for the offencr.s under the Pre'ventior. of Money Lending Act initiated by the t I KL,J AA 257 2024 5 Enforcement Directorate. Thus, there are disputes between the applicants and respondent No. 1. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is not party to the Memorandum of Understanding, dated 28.02.2025.

10. In the similar circumstalrces, vide order, dated

24.L2.2O24 in A.A.No.12O of 2024, this Court allowed the application and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the applicants therein and respondent No.1. I l. In the light of the same, this Court is of the considered view that there are disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.1 and the same are arbitrable disputes. This application is allowed and Sri Mangari Rajender, Retired District Judge, Resident of Vitta No.142, Keerthi Richmond Villa, Sunsity, Hyderabad, 500086 (Ph.No.944O483OO) is appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the applicants and respondent No.1. Liberty is granted to them to raise all the grounds and contentions which they have raised in the present application before the arbitrator and it is for the arbitrator to consider the aforesaid aspects. i I 6 AA 257 2021 6 As a sr:,1uel, miscellaneous petitions, if anv, pending shall st and clc sed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REG'STRAR ( t- sEcTtoN 6rrtcen 1 . sri Mangar r?ajender, Retired District Judge, Resident of vila No.142, Keerthi Richmond \/ Ila, Sunsity, Hyd_erabad, 500086 (ph.No 944048300) (ey Special - Messenger) (Along with a Copy of affidavit and material prp6rs)- 2. One CC to siri V. Seetharama Avadhani, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri S. Bhooma Goud, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies k ma r :r_ _.; r rt .:rr:r!r1!rat'.'ri*rri*". :1111* -, i 1 HIGH COURT DATED:051A312025 ORDER ARBAPPL.No.257 of 2024 l) .(,$ \"' \\ \ :. ) / .'.,. ,/ ALLOWINGTHE ARBITRATION APPLICATION 7 /,4 /*