Facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass.
According to the respondents, as per the MoU, they paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/ as token money to the appellant.
During the pendency of the arbitration application before the High Court, the respondents also filed a petition being A.A.O.P. No.
By order dated 20.06.2014, the Principal Sessions Judge allowed the petition.
79 of 2014 whereby the High Court allowed the application filed by the respondents herein under Section 11 5 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act and appointed the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes alleged to have arisen between the parties in relation to MoU dated 27.05.2013 and further directed the arbitrator to decide the legality and validity of the MoU by taking evidence.
41 of 2013 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry under Section 9 of the Act for grant of injunction restraining the appellant herein from alienating the property which was the subject matter of MoU. The appellant companytested the application and denied the very execution of MoU by him.
By impugned order dated 13.02.2015, the High Court allowed the application by holding that the legality and validity of the MoU including arbitration agreement can be examined by the Arbitrator on taking evidence and accordingly appointed Mr. B. Prakash Rao, a retired High Court Judge as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate all the disputes raised by the parties including to decide the question regarding legality and genuineness of MoU. Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
416/2B2 having companye into possession of it in the year 1990 by way of a registered gift deed.
On 11.12.2013, the respondents sent a letter to the appellant.
As the respondents did number get any response, they filed an application being Arbitration Application No.
The MoU, inter alia, provided that the respondents will resolve certain disputes that are pending between the appellant and certain other persons, namely, Mattaparthi Sivayya, Mattaparthi Satyanarayana and Mattaparthi Srinu, sons of late Appa Rao and another dispsute with Kanchumarthi Venkata Ramachandra Rao s o Seetarama Rao, with respect to the land in question and, in return, the appellant will sell 50 of the land to the respondents at the rate of Rs.1 crore per acre.
79 of 2014 before the High Court under Section 11 5 and 11 6 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator out of which this appeal by special leave arises.
In the letter, it was alleged that since disputes have arisen between them in relation to execution of MoU and hence the respondents, in terms of MoU, appoint one Sanyasi Rao retired District Judge as an arbitrator to decide the disputes.
He is since then enjoying peaceful possession of the said land.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in the appeal.
This appeal is filed by the appellant against the final judgment and order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Arbitration Application No.
The appellant also companytested the petition filed under Section 11 5 6 and filed a companynter affidavit therein stating, inter alia, that the MoU in question is forged and fabricated document and that he never signed any such document with the respondents.
According to the respondents, the appellant and the respondents entered into Memorandum of Understanding MoU dated 27.05.2013.
The appellant who was respondent before the High Court is the owner of the plot of land measuring 15.53 acres situated in Sy.
Heard Mr. V.V.S. Rao, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Basant R., learned senior companynsel for the respondents.
It was alleged that the so called MoU relied on by the respondents in their application is forged and fabricated document and that he has never signed any such MoU. It was, therefore, number binding on the appellant.
