SURESH JAIN Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present order this court proposes to dispose of Arbitration petition No. 489/2007 filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')praying inter alia for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that are stated to have arisen between the parties, and OMP No. 641/2007, which is filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act for grant of interim reliefs.

(2.) IT is the ease of the petitioner that the petitioner along with one Mr, R, K, Gupta entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (in short, 'jva')dated 18-8-2005 for developing a commercil dial complex on a plot of land bearing No. C-5/567, Ward-17, Jagadhari, situated at Jagadhari-Yamunanagar Road, yamuna Nagar, Haryana measuring 3026 sq. yds. in accordance with the terms and conditions of the JVA. It Is stated that the aforesaid JVA was executed in Delhi wherein the petitioner along with one Mr. R. K. Gupta were termed as 'developers' whereas the respondent was termed as the 'owner' as he is the owner of the suit property. The parties, in compliance of the JVA, undertook some obligations on 1-4-2006 and possession of the said property was handed over by the respondent to the petitioner in terms of clause 26 of the JVA.

(3.) ON 6/5/2006, the parties executed another JVA by amending the terms of the original JVA dated 18/6/2005. The second jva dated 6/5/2006 was entered into on account of the fact that the petitioner and mr. R. K. Gupta constituted a partnership firm, namely, M/s. Remarkable Buildwell as a result of which, the respondent executed the JVA with M/s. Remarkable Buildwell. It is stated that the only clauses that were modified in the second JVA dated 6-5-2006 were clauses No, 6, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 17. However, from amongst the clauses that remained the same, the following are relevant to decide the case in hand :