VENKATESH S. IYER Vs. D.B. JATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'), for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute which has arisen out of the agreement to sell at Annexure-A, dated 17-1-2011. The petitioner contends that he has entered into an agreement to sell at Annexure-A, dated 17-1-2011 for purchase of a Villa for total consideration of Rs. 1,10,00,600/- inclusive of Value Added Tax, Service Tax, and all amenities but excluding registration and stamp duty. He has paid an advance sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- by way of two separate cheques dated 5-12-2010 and 30-12-2010. It was agreed that balance of sale consideration has to be paid within thirty days from the date of the agreement.

(2.) It is further contended that the petitioner applied for loan from L.I.C.H.F.L. and the loan was sanctioned in a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. The petitioner informed his willingness to proceed with the registration of the Villa under the agreement. However, the respondent demanded post-dated cheques for the remaining amount of Rs. 81,98,025/-. The petitioner issued three separate cheques for these amounts, which have been duly acknowledged by the respondent.

(3.) It is further contended that the respondent had informed the petitioner that they had appointed M/s. Artha Properties as their sole Marketing Associate. The petitioner contacted M/s. Artha Properties for completion of the formalities for registration of the sale deed. However, M/s. Artha Properties informed the petitioner that cost of the Villa is Rs. 1.88 crores. The petitioner issued a notice through his lawyer demanding full refund of Rs. 3,50,000/- together with interest dated 16-5-2011. The respondent sent a reply proposing to appoint a retired Judge of this Court as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in accordance with Clause 25 of the agreement. The respondent through his Counsel has sent a reply dated 16-9-2011, informing the petitioner that they have no objection for appointment of a retired Judge of this Court as a sole Arbitrator. Again the petitioner has sent a letter dated 12-8-2013 informing his willingness for appointment of a retired Judge as an Arbitrator. In the meantime, the learned retired Judge, whose name was proposed, declined for appointment as an Arbitrator. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this civil miscellaneous petition seeking the following reliefs: