SUDHENDU KUMAR DUTTA Vs. ARATI DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th March, 2002, passed by the learned Single Judge on an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by one Smt. Arati Dhar, who had entered into an agreement with one Smt. Madhabi Chatterjee, represented by her constituted attorney, Mr. Sudhendu Kumar Dutta, the appellant herein, on 13th July, 1996, whereunder she agreed to purchase a flat measuring 650 sq. ft. in premises No. 131/37. Netaji Subash Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta-700 040 together with the proportionate share in plot No. 37, Regent Park comprising the said premises. As will appear from the judgment under appeal, the said construction was to be undertaken by the appellant herein and under the terms of the agreement the appellant was to make over possession of the flat to Smt. Arati Dhar within two months from the date of execution of the agreement.dated 13th July, 1996. Inasmuch as, the said two months expired on 13th September, 1996, within which time the flat could not be completed, the appellant entered into another agreement with Smt. Arati Dhar on 19th September, 1996, agreeing to provide her with alternative accommodation in a flat measuring about 1000 sq.ft. on the ground floor of premises No. 5B, Greek Church Row, Calcutta-700 026.

(2.) In the second agreement, it was mentioned that after completion of the flat at Regent Park, Smt. Arati Dhar would make over possession of the alternative accommodation at Greek Church Row within a period of one month from the date of completion of the said flat at Regent Park.

(3.) Admittedly, there was an arbitration clause in the first of the two agreements dated 13th July, 1996, but the second agreement did not contain such clause.