CHINTAKAYALA SIVARAMAKRISHNA Vs. NADIMPALLI VENKATA RAMA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of both sides the matter has been taken up for disposal pursuant to an earlier direction of this Court. Heard Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Appellant in this appeal is the petitioner in A. O. P. No. 35 of 2008, an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Act) to set aside the award dated 28.08.2007 passed by the third respondent (arbitrator) against him. The Court of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (trial court) by its order dated 31.05.2011 dismissed that AOP. Aggrieved, this appeal (CMA) under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act is filed.

(2.) The appellant is admittedly the vendor under the agreement of sale dated 28.06.2004 which he executed in favour of respondents 1 and 2 (referred to as purchasers). Under the said agreement, he agreed to sell a site of 4000 sq. yards out of Ac. 1-00 and 453.66 sq. yards (more fully described in the schedule to the said agreement) to the purchasers. The total sale consideration mentioned in the agreement was Rs. 1,35,00,000/-. The purchasers admittedly paid Rs. 15,10,116/-to the appellant by the date of the agreement and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. That agreement contained an arbitration clause, i. e. clause 17. The named arbitrator is one Sri K. V. Rama Murthy (for short Mr. Murthy), an advocate of Visakhapatnam and the said clause also empowered him in case he is unable to adjudicate the disputes, to appoint another in his place for that purpose. The place of arbitration is Visakhapatnam.

(3.) The recitals in the agreement disclose that the appellant earlier filed O. S. No. 397 of 1988 before the court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in respect of the property in question against the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) and Waltair Club due to some dispute. That suit was decreed. Both the defendants preferred appeals A. S. No. 118 of 1998 and A. S. No. 227 of 1998 before the concerned appellate court questioning the said decree. The agreement reads that irrespective of the result of the above appeals the purchasers agree to buy the property in question. The conditions relating to the period within which the balance sale consideration was to be paid varied depending upon the result of the appeals and there were also other conditions which we will refer to later. We are told that both the above appeals were dismissed and second appeals filed by the aggrieved parties are now pending in this court. All these aspects are admitted.