H M CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. CENTURY SILICON CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising three former Judges of this Court.

(2.) The petitioner entered into a Joint Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'JDA' for short) with Sri H.Yeshwanth Shenoy and others on 28.12.2004, followed by a Power of Attorney being executed by the said Sri H.Yeshwanth Shenoy and others, in favour of the petitioner herein, which is into the business of development and construction. On the same day one Sri P.Dayananda Pai, also executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner. The joint development was with respect to eight items of property as shown in the Schedule to the JDA. On 10.11.2011, a second JDA was executed by the respondent herein i.e., M/s.Century Silicon City along with a General Power of Attorney, in favour of the petitioner herein. The second JDA, it appears, was required in view of the owners of the property entering into a partnership with the respondent herein. Since dispute arose between the parties to the JDA, legal notice dated 24.10.2017 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner got a reply dated 27.11.2017 issued to the legal notice dated 24.10.2017. Subsequently, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted comprising of three former Judges of this Court. The respondent herein is the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal. Statement of objections was filed by the petitioner herein, while a counter-claim was also raised.

(3.) The Arbitral Tribunal proceeded to frame points for determination on 24.10.2018. The learned Counsel for the respondent objected to the marking of the first and second JDA, on the ground that they were required to be compulsorily registered. Since the two documents were not registered and the authenticity of one of the documents was said to be questionable, the respondent raised an objection. At that stage, it was agreed by the parties that point No.2(b) which related to the question of non-registration of the two JDAs could be heard as a preliminary issue. After hearing the learned Counsels on either side, the Arbitral Tribunal passed an order dated 18.12.2018 holding that the two documents styled as 'JDA dated 28.12.2004 and 10.11.2011 fall within the scope of Sec. 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act' and as such, are required to be registered compulsorily. Thereafter, an application dated 12.02.2019 was made by the petitioner herein seeking review of the order dated 18.12.2018. By order dated 16.04.2019, the Arbitral Tribunal held that the Arbitral Tribunal has no power to review the order passed by the Tribunal and even if there is any such power, no case is made out for review.