MAHALAKSHMI Vs. EESHAN CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act of 1996'), the petitioner has made the request for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate upon and decide all her disputes with the respondents, arising out of, and relating to, the Joint Development Agreement dated 06.05.2015.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she entered into a registered Joint Development Agreement with the respondents on 06.05.2015 in respect of the schedule property and the respondents had undertaken to develop the schedule property. Pursuant to the execution of the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner and the respondents had approached the Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA') seeking change of zone in respect of the schedule property from industrial zone to semi residential zone. The Member of the Town Planning, BDA, by its endorsement dated 08.03.2016 has refused to grant the permission for change of the zone. In view of the said endorsement issued by the BDA, there is legal termination of the contract.

(3.) It is submitted that the petitioner issued notice dated 06.04.2016 canceling and terminating the agreement. In spite of the same, the respondents made an illegal attempt to enter into the schedule property. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.2834/2016 for injunction against the respondents. The respondents appeared in the above suit and filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that there exists an arbitration clause between the parties in the agreement. The Trial Court, by its order dated 10.08.2016, rejected the plaint and directed the petitioner herein to approach Arbitrator. It is contended that the petitioner caused notice dated 16.08.2016 calling upon the respondents for reference to the Arbitrator. The respondents instead of replying to the aforesaid notice, have issued notice making false and frivolous demands.