- (1.) The parties are subjected to several round of litigations in relation to the development of the property. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the piece and parcel of the land and at one point of time, intended to develop the same by engaging a developer. It is a categorical case made out in the writ petition that the said developer did not take any steps after the execution of an agreement and a dispute was raised which was ultimately referred to arbitration. It is further contended that the arbitration never commenced as the parties did not approach the Arbitrator.
(2.) The private respondent claims to be the subsequent developer and have undertaken the development work on the basis of an agreement entered into by and between the petitioner and him. It is also not in dispute that there is an existence of a power of attorney in favour of the private respondent. The petitioner says that the agreement as well as power of attorney was subsequently terminated, branding them to be fraudulent one and, therefore, there was no right conferred upon the private respondent to undertake the development work.
(3.) It further appears from the records that a proceeding was initiated before the City Civil Court at Calcutta under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and an interim order was passed therein. The said order was further challenged before this Court and the appeal was disposed of giving certain protection to the private respondent. The dispute is ultimately referred to Arbitrator and the Arbitrator, as has been told by the respective learned Counsel, is in seisin thereof.;