SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) for referring the matter to Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents.
(2.) AS per the facts stated in the petition, the petitioner company having its registered office at Mumbai and Branch office at Jaipur engaged in the real Estate Business. The respondents 1 and 2 represented in the petitioner company that they are absolute and exclusive owner/lessee khatedar and in actual physical possession of 1. 50, 5. 16 and 0. 81 Hectares of land situated in village Nangal Susavatan, Amer Tehsil, Jaipur on Jaipur Delhi National Highway No. 8. Out of this land about 7. 33 Hectares land has been converted and approved as lease hold land for 99 years for use as Tourism related activities like Hotels, Motels, Resorts, Restaurant etc. By a Memorandum of understanding executed on April 3, 2004 it was agreed between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 that the respondent No. 1 shall sell the said land with structure to the petitioner company at the rate of Rs. 17,25,000 per bigha. The respondent No. 2 on behalf of respondent No. 1 received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in cash and Rs. 4,00,000/- vide cheque dated April 3, 2004 drawn on ICICI Bank New Delhi as an advance consideration towards the said transaction of land. On April 20, 2004 an agreement to sell was executed between the respondent 1 and the petitioner and two cheques in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000 and Rs. 49,00,000 drawn at State Bank of Indore New Delhi in the same of Samit Kavdia were handed over by the petitioner to the respondent 1. On receiving Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lacs), the respondents land 2 allowed the petitioner to get the said land surveyed by one Mr. Manish Jain, B. E. Civil. Thereafter the petitioner engaged the services of M/s. Aesthetic Point Architects, Landscape and Interior Designers t prepare a lay out plan of a motel having 200 beds. The said plan was submitted to the JDA. But the respondent No. 1 on April 8, 2005 asked the petitioner company in writing to close the matter. Cheque in the sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- (sixty lacs) was enclosed with the letter. Contention of the petitioner company is that the respondents 1 and 2 had committed breach of contract. The petitioner company replied the said letter informing respondents 1 and 2 the details of MOU and agreement to sell. On April 23, 2005, the Government granted permission to respondent No. 1 to sale the land to the extent of 6. 52 Hectares in the name of the respondent No. 3 that shows the dishonest intention of respondent No. 1 to wriggle out of the contract. No efforts were made by the respondents 1 and 2 to obtain the sanction of the land relating to. 81 hectares of Khewat containing the names of respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner company vide letter dated May 18, 2005 reminded respondents 1 and 2 for getting the sale deed of entire land executed and further assured that the petitioner has the balance sale consideration for the entire land. The respondents No. 1 and 2 did not reply the letter but sent a notice dated June 6, 2006 through M/s. Kasliwal Chamnbers asking the petitioner to make payment of the balance amount of Rs. 4,37,00,000 (rupees four crores thirty seven lacs) along with interest within 30 days of the receipt of the notice, failing which the amount already advanced by the petitioner shall be forfeited and the agreement dated April 20, 2004 shall stand cancelled without any further reference. The petitioner sent a reply to the said notice through their counsel reiterating that the deal was of one project and of entire land and that the plans were submitted under the signatures of the respondent 1 accordingly. The transfer of entire land was the very basis for the transactions. The transactions could not be performed on piecemeal basis. The petitioner could not be made to be agreed to purchase the land of 7. 02 hectares in isolation. It was submitted by the petitioner in the reply that they had incurred a huge amount in getting the land surveyed and the plans prepared. They were ready to purchase total land measuring 7. 83 hectares. By the said reply the petitioner warned respondents 1 and 2 not to create any other right and interest in the land to be transferred to the petitioner. Any attempt made in that directions shall lead to the cause of action to the petitioner for enforcing the contract. It was pointed out that the act of the respondents if converted in to action would amount to fraud and cheating.
(3.) THEREAFTER the respondents 1 and 2 vide communication dated July 11, 2005 stated that they have forfeited the amount and cancelled the entire agreement. The petitioner thereafter published a Notice dated July 26, 2005 in the daily Newspapers namely Hindustan times, Dainik Bhaskar and Rajasthan Patrika warning all concerns and the public that the land in question was subject matter of the agreement to sell cum memorandum of understanding and anyone who will be dealing with the land with the respondents 1 and 2 shall be doing the same at their own risk and responsibilities. On August 24, 2005 the respondent No. 1 in the name of respondent No. 3 executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 6 and in furtherance of their dishonest intention resulting also into a dispute between the petitioner and respondents. ;