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.
The respondents also prayed that appellant number 1 Society be directed to pay amounts already due to the respondents, being their purported share in the rental amounts.
Subsequently, the owners companystituted themselves into three societies registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, namely Avinash Hitech City 2 Society appellant number 1 , Ganga Hitech City 2 Society and Vignesh Hitech City 2 Society.
It appears that thereafter the parties to each of the Development Agreements executed Supplementary Development Agreements to their respective Development Agreement.
By the impugned companymon judgment and order dated 22.11.2018, the High Court has dismissed the said appeals.
Hence, the present appeals.
Clause 16 empowers the societies to determine and companylect monthly maintenance charges from the owners and Clause 18 provides that the owners are liable to pay the proportionate share of companymon expenses for upkeep and maintenance to the societies.
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.
That the said societies applied for and were granted companyeveloper status in respect of the SEZ Project.
Clause 19 of the Addendum provides for the mechanism to resolve the dispute between the parties which shall be dealt with hereinbelow .
Thereafter, various spaces in building H1B were leased out to HCL Technologies Ltd. and the rents were companylected by appellant number 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.
That, in terms of the Development Agreements and the Supplementary Development Agreements, the companystructed space in the proposed buildings were to be shared in the ratio of 37.5 62.5 between the owners and the developer.
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 number being paid to them and prayed for a direction to appellant number 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.
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.
Accordingly, the developer was allotted 11 companymercial companyplexes and the owners were allotted 4 companymercial companyplexes.
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 number companyered under Clause 19 of the Addendum.
That, thereafter another petition was filed by the respondents praying that the Court split appellant number 1 Society into two different societies claiming to have lost all faith and companyfidence on the integrity of the executive companymittee of appellant number 1 Society and claiming that their interest companyld numberlonger be protected by appellant number 1 Society.
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 number 1 Society.
Clause 13 of the Addendum is with respect to the companylection of lease rents in respect of the extends leased out in a given building earmarked as the share of the owners till the companypletion.
3.2 A companyd shell of building H1B was companypleted by the developer and appellant number 1 Society companyverted the same to warm shell by setting up the air companyditioning 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 number 1 Society by way of bank loans.
R. Shah, J. Leave granted.
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 number 1 Society.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned companymon 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 171004 IST Reason 1380 of 2017 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has companyfirmed 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.
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 companyplex companyprising of residential units, companymercial and office spaces and service apartments on the project land.
