M. SUNIL KUMAR Vs. M. MADANLAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner is before this Court seeking reference of the matter to an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute that has arisen between him and respondent in respect of Agreement to Sell.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is the son of the respondent. They purchased the property bearing Survey Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13, totally measuring 22 acres 20 guntas, situated at Doddamannugudde, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore -Mysore Main Road, Ramanagara, through registered Sale Deeds, registered in the name of respondent being the elder member of the family. Subsequently, petitioner entered into an agreement on 9.2.2011 with the respondent agreeing to purchase half share of the suit schedule properties. However, the same was denied by the respondent and he started claiming that he is the absolute owner of the property and offered to sell the entire property in favour of third parties. Hence, petitioner is before this Court seeking reference of the matter to an Arbitrator.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that he was never a party to the agreement nor has executed any power to the advocate to contest on his behalf before District Court, Ramanagara, and an improper order came to be passed at the instance of the petitioner who is none other than the son of the respondent. Accordingly, he submitted that reference of the matter to an Arbitrator does not arise as the document - Agreement to Sell is a concocted and forged one and hence seeks dismissal of the petition. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Rasiklal Ashra -vs - Goutam Rasiklal Ashra and another : (2012) 2 SCC 144) and contended that for appointment of Arbitrator by Chief Justice or his designate, there shall be existence of valid and enforceable arbitration agreement in respect of disputes raised.