B. MURUGESWARAN Vs. AMIR JAMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (Act) for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents in connection with an agreement for sale dated 06.02.2012.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he entered into an agreement for sale for purchase of the schedule mentioned property owned by the respondent for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,02,25,000/-. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by cheque dated 30.01.2012 and undertook further payment of Rs.45,00,000/- for which four cheques were issued. The petitioner claims that he has been put in possession of the property and invested a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for developing the same. It is further stated that the respondents sent a telegram on 18.02.2013, stating as if, the petitioner is not ready to conclude the sale transaction in respect of the schedule property and instructed the petitioner to be present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kodaikanal on 25.02.2013, to complete the transaction. The petitioner sent a reply telegram on 23.02.2013, furnishing the details of the payment and the expenditure incurred for developing the property and also assured that he will register the sale deed on 25.02.2013. The petitioner would state that on the said date, the respondents were not present in the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent demanded the petitioner to furnish his Bank Account number for depositing the advance amount received by them in respect of the schedule property. There has been exchange of notices between the parties, it is the further case of the petitioner that he issued a notice dated 09.03.2013, calling upon the petitioner to perform his obligation under the agreement of sale and execute the sale deed. After receipt of the notice, the respondent is said to have deposited the entire sum of Rs.50,00,000/- received under the agreement into the bank account of the petitioner and sent a reply notice dated 18.03.2013, stating that it is the petitioner who wanted the money to be deposited in his bank account. To this reply notice, a re-joinder was sent by the petitioner on 25.03.2013, reiterating the earlier contentions. Thereafter, on 09.04.2013, the petitioner through his counsel sent a letter to the respondents referring the matter to arbitration and appointing a retired Hon'ble Judge of this Court as their Arbitrator and called upon the respondents either to give consent or to suggest some other name of their choice. Since the said letter did not evoke any response, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

(3.) Heard Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after referring to the facts stated above submitted that the agreement provides for an Arbitration though the agreement is one for sale of property, the petitioner need not be directed to approach the Civil Court to sue for specific performance and he is entitled to invoke the Arbitration clause and seek for referring the matter to Arbitration. In support of such contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Olympus Superstructures Pvt., Ltd., vs. Meena Vijay Khetan & Ors., dated 11.05.1999 and The Branch Manager, M/s.Magma Leasing & Finance Ltd., & Anr., vs. Potluri Madhavilata & Ors., dated 18.09.2009.