The High Court · 2025

SMT. DAPPU RUKKAMMA, W/O Sri D chinamallaiah, aged about . 65 years, Q99 . Hquge wife, resident of Tellapurvillage, Rcpuiam Mandal, Medai District, Telangana. - 502032. Emait. t. [email protected]

3. SRI. DAPPU BAJU 9/q Sri D chinamallaiah, aged about . 41 years, Occ. Qusiness, resident of Tellapur village, R.C.purdm Mandal, Medak District, Telangana. - 502032. E. mail l.D. [email protected]

4. SMT A. BHAGYASREE, D/o Sri D chinamallaiah, aged about . 38 years, Occ. House wife, resident of Tellapur village, R.C. pura-m Mandal, Medak District, Telangana. -502032. E. mail [.D. [email protected].

5. SRI DAPPU PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/o Sri D chinamailaiah, aged about . 36 Years, Occ. Business, resident of Tellapur village, R.C.puram tlandal, Medak District, Telangana. - 502032. E. mail 1.D. [email protected] Arbitration Application Under Section .l 1 (5) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 praying that in the circumstances stated in accompanying affidavit this Hon'ble court may be pleasec to appoint a sole Arbitrator under section 1 1 (5) and (6) of Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996. read with Rules ...RESPONDENTS andSchemeundertheActforgettingthedisputesresolvedbetweentheparties as per Clause Vlll of the Development Agreement Cum General Power of Attorneydated02.03.20.l6andforpassinganawardbysuchsoleArbitrator. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N. Bhasker Rao Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri K' Madhusudhan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: Ms' Vedula Chitralekha The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN ARBITRATIO N APPLICATION No.297 of 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri N. Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for applicant and Sri K. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. This application is filed under Section l1(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short .the Act,), to appoint sole arbitrator for the purpose of adjudication of disputes between the applicant and the respondents.

3. According to the applicant, his father and he & respondent Nos.2 to 5 have entered into Development Agreement-cum-General power of Attorney bearing document No.4712 of 2016 dated 03.03.2016 with regard to development of schedule property mentioned therein on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. In the said agreement, it is mentioned that father of the applicant was the absolute owner and possessor of the said property and the applicant and ..1.. 2 KL, J Arb-Appt.No 297 of 2024 ; ::. respondent Nos.2 to 5 are consenting parties' According to the applicant, after execution of the said agreement, his father passed away. Further, there are disputes between the applicant and the respondents with regard to execution of the said agreement and also development of the schedule property in terms of the agreement. The said disputes are arbitrable in nature. Therefore, the applicant got issued a notice dated 2'1 .04.2024 to the respondents. He has also filed an application, A.O.P.No.7l of 2024, under Section 9 of the Act' As the respondents are not taking steps to resolve the disputes, he has hled the present Arbitration Application to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the said disputes.

4. Respondents filed counter opposing this application on the ground that the notice dated 21 .04.2024 was not issued in terms of Section 21 of the Act; the said notice was not served on respondent Nos.2 to 5 and there are subsequent developments pursuant to the aforesaid agreement' Further, the applicant has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 31.12.2024 with respondent No.l. As per the 3 KL, J Arb Appl No.297 of 202.1 said MoU, the applicant agreed to relinquish his rights and respondent No.1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.7,35,00,000/- to the applicant. In Clause 9 of the said MoU, the applicant agreed to withdraw the present arbitration application. Therefore, the respondents are opposing this application.

5. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section 2l of the Act deals with commencement of arbitral proceedings. The same is relevant and is extracted below: "21. Commencement of arbitral proceedings. - Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respcct of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respomlc,nt." As per the above said provision, the arbitral proceedings commence on the date on which request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent.

6. Vide notice dated 21 .L1.2024, the applicant demanded the respondents to cooperate with him for getting the subject agreement cancelled by way of execution of a registered cancellation deed. He has also requested the respondents to I I 4 l:L,,1 Arb-Appl.No 297 ol 202'+ inform convenient date immediately after expiry of 90 days even for getting the subject agreement cancelled by way of execution of registered cancellation deed, failing which, legal proceedings would follorv for securing the said relief and lurlher', tl're respondents arc held liable for all the consequences. However, there is no request fiom the applicant to refer the disputes to the arbitrator.

7. In vierv of the above, it is relevant to note that the scope and arnbit ol Section 21 of the Act fell for consideration in Kurnuda Sreenivasa Sasikanth v. M/s. Ananya Child Development and Early [ntervention Clinicr wherein this Courl categorically held that there should be specific request to ref-er the matter to the arbitrator. Merely stating that the dispute had arisen between the parties and to make a ref'erence to a claim would not fulf,rll the lcquirement of Section 21 ol'the Act. ln the absence ol' notice under Section 21 of the Act, the arbitration application under Section 11 of the Act cannot be enterlained. ' 200+ La* Sl'rit 1ts)+s: * 5 KL, J Arb.Appl.No.297 ol 2024

8. As discussed supra, in the present case also, there is no request made by the applicant to refer the matter to the arbitrator. Vide notice dated 27.04.2024, the applicant has demanded the respondents to cooperate with him in gelting ttre subject agreement cancelled by way of execution of a registered cancellation deed. The same is not in terms of Section 2l of the Act. Admittedly, tlte application vide A.O.P.No.7l of 2024 filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed and according to the applicant, against the said order of dismissal, he has preferred an appeal and the same is pending.

9. In the light of the above, this Arbitration Application is dismissed. However, liberty IS granted to the applicant to initiate fresh proceedings as per the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. /ITRUE COPY/' SD/- M, VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri N. Bhasker Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri K. Madhusudhan Reddy' Advocate [OPUCI ! -,d \ One CC to Ms Vedula Chitralekha' Advocate IOPUCI Two CD CoPies .,

4. I Vll/gh k ( HIGH COURT DATED: 2610012025 t \ I ORDER ARBAPPL.No.297 of 2024 1HE STATE .J 2l [u$ 1t?5 t D ,..r,"fl. \)4 Cr)\ r'., l,l;' ,.. DISMISSING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION u g 2,)