JAGDAMBEY BUILDERS PVT LTD Vs. HARSH RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'act') for appointment of independent arbitrator.

(2.) THE arbitration agreement relied upon in this application is with reference to Memorandum of Understanding (for short 'mou') dated January 31, 2005 and the Collaboration Agreement dated March 9, 2005 entered into between the parties. Under the MOU dated January 31, 2005 entered into between the respondent Harsh Rathore, referred to as 'the first party' in the MOU and the applicant M/s. Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. , referred to as 'the Builder Company' in the MOU. It was agreed that the respondent Harsh Rathore on the terms and conditions agreed upon would hand over/surrender his land admeasuring 7913 sq. Yds. bearing plot No. 6, forming part of Khasra No. 50, situated at Sodala Civil Lines, Jaipur, popularly known as ''rathore Nursery'' to the applicant for developing and constructing a commercial complex and that the entire cost for construction of the complex including all incidental expenses would be to the account of applicant and on construction so made 50% of the constructed/built up area would vest in the respondent and remaining 50% of constructed/built up area would belong to and vest in the applicant. An amount of Rs. 4. 5 crores was agreed to be paid by the applicant to respondent out of which 2. 25 crores was non refundable and remaining 2. 25 crores was refundable on completion of the construction of the proposed commercial complex. THE applicant as per agreed terms made payment to the respondent.

(3.) IT appears that some dispute arose between the parties and an application under Section 9 of the Act was filed before the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City for interim measures respondent from transferring or entering into any agreement with any third person and to maintain status quo in respect of the property. Learned District Judge vide order dated December 22, 2006 restrained the respondent from transferring the land and by subsequent order dated March 28, 2007 directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property. The interim order is operative and binding on the parties. I however find that the respondent in the reply to the said application denied even the existence of arbitration agreement.