M/S Krm Home Makers Pvt Ltd Rep By Its Director Ms Moorthy v. S Baskar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 30.10.2024 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Arb.OP(Com.Div.) No.337 of 2024 M/s.KRM Home Makers Pvt.Ltd., Rep. By its Director, M.S.Moorthy, Having its registered Office at No.602, Suruthi Block, Chitra Avenue, No.9, Choolaimedu High Road, Chennai 600 094 ... Petitioner /versus/ 1.S.Basker 2.Nirmaladevi 3.S.R.Venkat Sridhar 4.Parthiban 5.K.Rajalakshmi 6.K.Rajeswari 7.M.Bharathi 8.UshaKannan T.Venkatachalam(deceased) 9.V.Jothiammal 10.Om Prakash 11.Ramesh Kumar 12.K.R.Lakshmi 13.R.Selvam 14.A.Selvaraj ... Respondents Prayer: Original Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996, seeking to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondents.

For Petitioner : M/s.Pass Asso.

For Respondents For R1 to 5, 8, 10 &11 : Mr.K.V.Babu For R6,7,9,12,13,14: No Appearance

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondents.

2. The petitioner states that they are reputed Home Makers engaged in the business of purchase of lands, plots or immovable properties and to develop and construct residential or commercial complexes etc., thereon for sale. The petitioner decided to form a dream and innovative project i.e. 'Mitra Science City', for which the first respondent assured that he will arrange for 100 acres of land. On 28.07.2022, a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. Thereafter, sale agreement was entered into and also advance amount was paid. However, the respondents failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding, for which the petitioner sent a notice dated

11.03.2023. The respondents also replied by letter dated 22.01.2024, however the respondents replied that the memorandum of understanding had become unenforceable as the timeline fixed for enforcing the same has been lapsed. According to the petitioner, the respondents are not co-operating for arbitration. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition.

3. It is seen that though notice was sent to the respondents nominating a retired District Judge to adjudicate the dispute between the respondents and the petitioner as per Clause 17 of the memorandum of understanding, the respondents are not co-operating for the same. It is relevant to extract Clause 17 of the memorandum of understanding hereunder:

"17. In case of any dispute arises between the parties it shall be referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the 1st party"

4. Notice was ordered on the respondents and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5, 8, 10 & 11 is also present before this Court today. Therefore, there is no impediment to proceed with the matter.

5. On perusal of clause 17 of the memorandum of understanding, it is evident that the disputes are required to be resolved through arbitration. The petitioner has also duly invoked the arbitration clause. In view of the failure of the respondents to

respond thereto, or took consent to the nominee proposed by the petitioner, the Arbitral Tribunal is required to be constituted in accordance with Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.

6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to appoint an arbitrator. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by appointing Mr.S.Arunachalam, Advocate having office address - Door No.323, New Additional Law Chambers, II Floor, High Court Building, Chennai 600 104 (mobile: 80560 38856) as the Sole Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator is directed to enter upon reference and adjudicate the dispute in accordance with law. It is open to the Sole Arbitrator to fix his fees and expenses in relation to the arbitral proceedings.

30.10.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking lok

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok Arb.OP(Com.Div.) No.337 of 2024 30.10.2024