ARBAPPL/13/2025 of M/s. KLR Industries Ltd Vs M/s. Legend Estates Pvt. Limited on 1 April 2026

ORDER:

The instant Arbitration Application has been hled b_l' the applicants under Section 11(5) & (6X6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying the Court to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of applicanrs arrd respondents to adjudicate the claims and disputes arising under the Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Povver of Attorney, vide Document No.64 14 of 2014, dated 14. ll.2Ol4, and to award costs o[ application.

2. Heard Mr. M. Sreyas Reddy, Iearned counsel for the applicants; anci Mrs. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the respondents

The brief facts leading to filing of instant arbitr€ tion application by the applicants is that applicants herein are ab s )lute owners and possessors of land admeasuring 3296 Sq.yds . (orl lT guntas and, 29 Sq.yds., purchased by the applicants under vai,) rs registered sale deeds. The said land is an extent of Acs.2.ll gt;. and 57 Sq.yds. 2O4 / AA to 206 / A, situated in Survey Nos.l26/A. & AA, 199/A & AA, 20,J ,{4, E, EE, U, UU. 2O6/p, 209 and 2tO, situated Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. The responclent No. 1, after enquiring with the rr possession over the above subject properties, har applicants rnith an intention to develop the above srr negotiations, the applicants have agreed for the propc respondents, and accordingly a registered Developme-t General Power of Attorney, vide Document No.64 t 12.12.2014, was entered into between the applicants for development of the subject lands. Under the sir applicants are entitled for 50% of the villas in the gat, was further agreed by both parties that the responde r the villas allotted to applicants within a period of 3( date of obtaining sanction and permission fronr e t Kokapet Village, rplicants' title and approached the rject lands. After sal put up by the

- Agreement-cum- I / 2014, dared and respondents d agreement, the 'd community. It ts shall haldover months from the the Hyderabad

Metropolital Development Authority, with a further grace period of 6 moths

5. l,earned counsel for the applicants contended that since the date of entering into development agreement, the respondents have delayed execution of the project in constructing villas; the respondents, contrary to the terms of development agreement, have alienated open plot Nos. 196, 197 part,2O2 part and 203 admeasuring 1,506 Sq.yds and 197 part, 198, 20 I ald 202 part admeasuring 1,506 Sq.yds., under lwo sale deeds vide Document No.781 of 2015 and 783 of 20i5, dated 1 1.O2.20 15; aggrieved, the applicants lodged a police complaint dated

05. o 1.2020.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that the applicants have been following up with respondents for successful completion of the project; since the respondents have failed in completion of villas, the applicants decided to accept / receive the construction value as per the existing market rates from respondents so as to enable the applicants to complete the construction work on their own; despite besl efforts put in by the applicants in pr.rrsuing the respondents to complete the project within time and to deliver 50% share of villas to the applicants, the respondents till date have not taken steps to-complete thc i !, I I

proJect as \\ras agreed between the parties under th€ Agreement; accordingly, a legal notice was issued to the applicants on 09.O9.2024 calling r.rpon the res pavment tou,arrds value of the construction and dalr favour of applicants along with interest @ 24o/o pe- days from the date of receipt of notice as per terms at Development Agreement, dated 14. Il.2Ol4; despite notice by the respondents, the respondents have amounts, and instead given a reply notice dated 25. 10 and frivolous allegations.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants further subnr no other option, the applicants preferred to invoke arlr of the said development agreement, dated 14.ll.2OI agreed by both parties that in case of any dispute e: parties, the matter would be referred to a so ( accordingly, a legal notice dated I3,1I.2O24, invokinl; Development Agreement dated 14.ll.2OI4, wa{ respondents calling upon the respondents to { appointment of al arbitrator between the applicants ar adjudicating the dispute bet,"r.een them; however, the said Development he respondents by rondents to make ages calculated in annum within 15 I conditions of the eceipt of the said lailed to pay the 2024 :ur-t!l. all false tted that, left with tration clause (20) 1, wherein it was ising between the arbitrator; and Clause (20) of the issued to the ive consent for d respondents for espondents, after receipt of the said notice, refused to give reply, which led to filing of the instant Arbitration Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration a.nd Conciliation Act, L996.

8. On 14.02.2025, notice was ordered to the respondents. Thereafter, learned counsel, appearing on beha-lf of the respondents, entered appearance and sought time for hling counter-aJhdavit in the matter.

9. Counter-afhdavit has been hled by respondent No.2, i.e., the Managing Director of respondent No.l-Company, stating that the applicants have fraudulently issued a letter dated 24.08.2016 directing the respondents to stop construction work immediately till disposal of Civil Suits, viz., O.S.No. 1065 of 2OO7 and O.S.No.1034 of 2015; on account of stay granted by the Trial Court, the respondents could not proceed with completion of project; after withdrawal of the above suirs b_v the applicants, the respondents have resumed construction r,r,ork and completed rnost of the works; the respondents are ready and rvilling to cornplete the construction work, but it is on account of ongoing litigation and stay orders obtained from the Trial Court by the applicants, the respondents could not complete the project; and therefore, contended that the instant arbitration application need not be entertained by the Court since respondents have agreed to complete construction r,r,ork. t g I I

10. Having heard the contentions put forth on eitL perusal of the record, and also taking into the consi and circumstances of the case, given the nature of .disp raised and canvassed by the applicalts ald a_ls: arbitration ciause (20) contained in the Development lr been entered into betu,een applicants and responden and printa focie proof of service of notice on the respo..l been hled by the applicants, this Court is inclined to arl application. :r side and on a leration the facts rte that had been considering the Jeement that has s on 14.11.2014 lents also having rw the arbitration 1 1. Accordingl_v, this Court appoints Hon,ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram, retired Judge, resident of plot No.6g, Fi ad No.7l, phase_ IIi, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 5OO O33, Mobile No.g3li LO 1O695, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute betw,een the parti<:: . t2. Needless to state that both parties are at liberty t ) raise aI claims and counter claims before the sole arbitrator who in tt rn shall conduct the arbitration proceedings in accordance with prov Lr ions of the Act. The venue of arbitration shall be decided mutually by ri e parties subject to consultation and agreement of the learned Arbitrator.. The fee payable l \

to the learned Arbitrator shall also be decided mutually by the parties in consultation and agreement with the learned Arbitrator.

13. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application stands allowed. No costs L4. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. .s.s.c.s.M. OINT REG R /ffRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. Hon'ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram, retired , resident of Plot 500 033, Mobile No.68, Road No.71, Phase-lll, Jubilee Hills, Hyderab No.83310 10695. (By Special Messenger)(Along with a Copy of affidavit and material papers)

2. One CC to Mr. M. Sreyas Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies KAM/PSL

HIGH COURT DATED: 0110412026

ORDER

ARBAPPL.No.13 of 2025 ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION Jis of+fz6 iE $-) i .A

1C l,il ?il?t 'z' (;) ( \

* Oi:.. : I I i I