- (1.) The present request for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal for refer-ence of the disputes between the parties to arbitration in accordance with their arbitra-tion agreement, throws up a number of is-sues. Of the various objections which have been taken by the first respondent, the pri-mary one is that the petitioner herein, if it were to file a suit on the basis of the claims apparent, it would be a suit for land since the petitioner's claim is inextricably connected to the land in Coimbatore that the parties had agreed to develop.
(2.) A joint development agreement was en-tered into by the first and second respondents herein which envisaged that the second re-spondent developer would develop the prop-erty into a shopping mall-cum-commercial complex consisting of one or more buildings. Though some of the terms of the agreement may subsequently have been altered, the agreement of October 18, 2006 provided that the first respondent owner would be entitled to 50 per cent, of the constructed space and the second respondent developer would be entitled to the balance 50 per cent. The agree-ment also envisaged some payment being made by the developer including a sum of Rs. 11 crore by way of loan to help the owner discharge a mortgage liability. Clause XIV of the agreement of October 18, 2006 con-tains the arbitration agreement that the peti-tioner has sought to enforce: "i. In the event of any doubt, difference or dispute in the interpretation or implemen-tation of the agreement or the development or any matter concerning this agreement or the development, the same shall be referred to Sri. L. G. Ramamurthi and the decision of the sole arbitrator on all matters so referred shall be final and binding upon the parties."
(3.) As is evident, the petitioner herein was not a party to the joint development agree-ment of October 18, 2006. The petitioner herein came in under an agreement entitled "JDA Assignment Agreement" executed on March 23, 2007 to which the parties herein were parties. The essence of such agreement is that the rights and obligations of the sec-ond respondent developer under the joint de-velopment agreement of October 18, 2006 stood assigned in favour of the petitioner herein. Clause 6.5 of the assignment provides that the petitioner herein would not commit breach of any of the terms of the agreement of October 18, 2006 and Clause 6.6 thereof stipulates that by virtue of the assignment, "it shall be deemed as if the JDA has been executed by the owner with the SPV (the petitioner herein) in place and stead of Presidium to the extent of remaining unper-formed by the parties as of now.";