M.R.SHAH,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in C.M.A. Nos. 1257, 1379 and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2019.09.06 17:10:04 IST Reason: 1380 of 2017 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy rejecting applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellants herein and has refused to refer the dispute between the parties to the Arbitrator, the original applicants have preferred the present appeals.
(3.) The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under: 3.1 That the original land­owners of the land admeasuring 25 acres and 68 cents in aggregate forming part of Survey Nos. 30, 34, 35 and 38 situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District executed 17 development agreements cum power of attorney in favour of one Phoenix Infocity Private Limited for developing an integrated complex comprising of residential units, commercial and office spaces and service apartments on the project land. Subsequently, the owners constituted themselves into three societies registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, namely Avinash Hitech City 2 Society (appellant no. 1), Ganga Hitech City 2 Society and Vignesh Hitech City 2 Society. That the said societies applied for and were granted co­developer status in respect of the SEZ Project. It appears that thereafter the parties to each of the Development Agreements executed Supplementary Development Agreements to their respective Development Agreement. That, in terms of the Development Agreements and the Supplementary Development Agreements, the constructed space in the proposed buildings were to be shared in the ratio of 37.5 : 62.5 between the owners and the developer. Accordingly, the developer was allotted 11 commercial complexes and the owners were allotted 4 commercial complexes. It seems that the respondents are the owners who have been allotted a share in building H1B and also are the members of the appellant no. 1 Society. It appears that, thereafter, an Addendum to the Supplementary Development Agreement was executed by inter alia the appellants and the respondents (excluding the lessee, HCL Technologies Limited) on 12.03.2010. Clause 19 of the Addendum provides for the mechanism to resolve the dispute between the parties (which shall be dealt with hereinbelow). Clause 13 of the Addendum is with respect to the collection of lease rents in respect of the extends leased out in a given building earmarked as the share of the owners till the completion. Clause 16 empowers the societies to determine and collect monthly maintenance charges from the owners and Clause 18 provides that the owners are liable to pay the proportionate share of common expenses for upkeep and maintenance to the societies. 3.2 A cold shell of building H1B was completed by the developer and appellant no. 1 Society converted the same to warm shell by setting up the air conditioning facilities, back­up generators and back­up power implementation, building management system implementation, electrical works and civil works and the funds for the same were raised by appellant no. 1 Society by way of bank loans. Thereafter, various spaces in building H1B were leased out to HCL Technologies Ltd. and the rents were collected by appellant no. 1 Society. 3.3 That, thereafter, the respondents filed a petition under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short 'the Societies Registration Act ') before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District making an allegation that their purported share in the rentals were not being paid to them and prayed for a direction to appellant no. 1 Society to produce the entire accounts for the rental amounts received by it from the tenants along with audit reports and minute books from 2011 to 2015. The respondents also prayed that appellant no. 1 Society be directed to pay amounts already due to the respondents, being their purported share in the rental amounts. That, thereafter another petition was filed by the respondents praying that the Court split appellant no. 1 Society into two different societies claiming to have "lost all faith and confidence on the integrity " of the executive committee of appellant no. 1 Society and claiming that their interest could no longer be protected by appellant no. 1 Society. That, thereafter, third application was filed by the respondents before the learned District Judge under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act and prayed for a mandatory injunction against the appellants herein directing them to inter alia distribute the rents purportedly received by appellant no. 1 Society. 3.4 In the light of the arbitration Clause 19 of the Addendum, the appellants filed petitions under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with Clause 19 of the Addendum. All the three applications came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge on the ground that the disputes between the parties in the petition under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act are not covered under Clause 19 of the Addendum. 3.5 Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the appellants herein preferred three separate appeals before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order dated 22.11.2018, the High Court has dismissed the said appeals. Hence, the present appeals. ;