RAKESH KUMAR GARG Vs. VIPUL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of 19 (Nineteen) -Buyer's Agreements dated 19th December, 2005 entered into between the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that one plot admeasuring approximately 3.1875 acres was owned by M/s. Classic Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. in which the petitioner, his family members and relatives are the shareholders. The other plot admeasuring 2.83 acres had earlier belonged to M/s. Tarupit Exports Pvt. Ltd. wherein also the petitioner's relatives were shareholders. The entire shareholding of M/s. Tarupit Exports has been bought by the respondent -Company under a Share -Purchase Agreement dated 19th December, 2005 and in this manner, the respondent -company became owner of the plot measuring 2.83 acres, earlier owned by M/s. Tarupit Exports Pvt. Ltd. The respondent -Company thereafter entered into a Collaboration Agreement on 19th December, 2005 with M/s. Classic Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. in terms whereof the parties agreed that the entire commercial area to be developed on both the plots, would be leased out to M/s. DELL International Services India Pvt. Ltd. on a built -to -suit basis and the ownership between the respondent and M/s. Classic was agreed to be in the ratio of 42 : 58. It is alleged that the respondent undertook the development of the two adjoining plots of land by constructing a commercial complex consisting of shops and offices etc., which was proposed to be further sold to various third party buyers by entering into the Buyers Agreements. The petitioner claims to be one such third party buyer who had entered into 19 (Nineteen) agreements dated 19th December, 2005 with the respondent for the purchase of commercial space in 'Vipul Towers' and under each agreement, the respondent allotted to the petitioner an FSI admeasuring 5000 sq. ft. @ 500/ -per sq. ft at an aggregate consideration of 4.75 crores which the petitioner is stated to have paid in entirety. The petitioner alleges that contrary to the understanding between the parties that the 95000 sq. ft. area comprised in the commercial complex would be allotted/sold to the petitioner from out of the built -up areas on each of the two adjoining plots which were being commercially developed by the respondent so that about 47500 sq. ft. FSI area was allotted to him from each of the buildings being constructed on the said two plots, the respondent started selling its 42% share of built -up area comprised in the plot belonging to M/s. Classic without reserving any space for the petitioner as per the Agreements. The respondent is said to have continued to sell/allot the entire 42% of its share in the building constructed on the land belonging to M/s. Classic without reserving any space for the petitioner despite a registered notice dated 11th December, 2006 sent by the petitioner expressing his reservations against such sale/allotments. The petitioner is said to have held several discussions/meetings and telephonic conversations with the representative of the respondent for handing over the possession of the allotted area under the Buyer's Agreements dated 19th December, 2005 but having found no favourable response, he was left with no option but to agree to the proposal given by the respondent that he would be allotted the agreed area in the complex on the land belonging to M/s. Tarupit. The respondent, however, once again failed to honour its commitment as per the obligations under the Buyers Agreements dated 19th December, 2005 and has not handed over the possession of 95000 sq. ft. built -up space in the commercial complex constructed on the two adjoining plots of land belonging to M/s. Classic and M/s. Tarupit, thereby giving rise to a dispute referable to an Arbitrator to be appointed under the 1996 Act in terms of the following Clause 12 of the Buyer's Agreements dated 19th December, 2005:

(3.) ON February 25, 2008, the respondent's contention that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, the Chief Justice does not constitute the 'Principal Civil Court' of the District and, therefore, cannot issue any interim order or direction, was taken notice.