{"id":240476,"date":"2011-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-24T15:41:03","modified_gmt":"2018-08-24T10:11:03","slug":"deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: R.V.Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                                                   Reportable\n\n\n                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2691 OF 2011\n\n                    [Arising out of SLP [C] No.34139\/2010]\n\n\n\n\n\nDeutsche Post Bank Home Finance Ltd.                            ... Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nTaduri Sridhar & Anr.                                           ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
       Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.     The second respondent (referred to as the `Developer’) entered into a <\/p>\n
development   agreement   with   the   owners   of   certain   lands   at   Bachupally <\/p>\n
village,   Qutubullapur   Mandal,   Ranga   Reddy   District,   for   constructing <\/p>\n
independent   houses   and   multistoried   Apartment   buildings   with   common <\/p>\n
facilities in a layout known as `Hill County township’. The landowners as <\/p>\n
the first party, the developer as the second party and the first respondent who <\/p>\n
                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
wanted   to   acquire   an   apartment   therein   as   the   third   party   entered   into   an <\/p>\n
agreement for sale dated 16.10.2006 under which the land-owners agreed to <\/p>\n
sell an undivided share equivalent to 87 sq.yds. out of a total extent of 16.95 <\/p>\n
acres   to   the   first   respondent   and   the   developer   agreed   to   construct   a <\/p>\n
residential apartment measuring 1889 sq.ft. for the first respondent. The total <\/p>\n
consideration for the undivided share in the land, apartment and car parking <\/p>\n
space was agreed as Rs.55,89,368. The agreement contemplating the entire <\/p>\n
price   being   paid   in   instalments,   that   is   10%   on   booking,   85%   in   seven <\/p>\n
instalments   upto 15.3.2008 and 5% at the time of delivery. Clause (14) of <\/p>\n
the said agreement dated 16.10.2006 provided for settlement of disputes by <\/p>\n
arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
3.      On the request of the first respondent, the appellant (earlier known as <\/p>\n
`BHW Home Finance Ltd.’) sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.52 lakhs to the <\/p>\n
first   respondent   for   purchase   of   the   said   apartment   in   terms   of   a   loan <\/p>\n
agreement dated 21.12.2006  entered into between the first respondent as the <\/p>\n
borrower and the appellant as the lender. The said loan agreement contained <\/p>\n
the   terms   of   the   loan,   rate   of   interest,   provisions   for   amortization, <\/p>\n
consequences   of   delay   in   payment   of   EMIs,   security   for   repayment,   and <\/p>\n
general covenants of borrower. Clause (11) thereof provided for settlement <\/p>\n
of   all   disputes   (that   is,   all   matters,   questions,   disputes,   differences   and\/or <\/p>\n
                                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
claims   arising   out   of   and\/or   concerning   and\/or   in   connection   and\/or   in <\/p>\n
consequences of breaches, termination or invalidity thereof or relating to the <\/p>\n
Agreement) by arbitration by the Managing Director of the appellant  or his <\/p>\n
nominee  as   sole   Arbitrator.   The   first   respondent   subsequently   had   entered <\/p>\n
into   a   supplemental   loan   agreement   with   the   appellant   on   29.10.2007   for <\/p>\n
reducing the loan amount from Rs.52 lakhs to Rs.49,78,527\/-; and the said <\/p>\n
loan has been disbursed in terms of the said loan agreements.\n<\/p>\n
4.      It   is   alleged   that   a   tripartite   agreement   was   also   executed   on <\/p>\n
21.12.2006 among first respondent as borrower, the developer as guarantor <\/p>\n
and   the   appellant   as   the   lender,   under   which   it   was   agreed   that   the   loan <\/p>\n
amount should be disbursed by the appellant directly  to the developer and <\/p>\n
such amounts paid to the developer shall be deemed to be disbursement of <\/p>\n
loan by the appellant to the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
5.      In   pursuance   of   the   agreement   of   sale   dated   16.10.2006,   the   first <\/p>\n
respondent paid the entire sale price to the developer through the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,   the   land-owners   and   the   developer   executed   a   registered   sale <\/p>\n
deed   dated  21.2.2008  for  a  consideration   Rs.21,27,409\/-,  conveying  to  the <\/p>\n
first respondent, an undivided share in the land equivalent to 87 sq.yds. with <\/p>\n
the   semi   finished   apartment   bearing   No.3E   in   the   third   floor   of   Nainital <\/p>\n
                                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
Block of Hill County with one reserved parking space. On the same day the <\/p>\n
first   respondent   entrusted     the   construction   of   the   unfinished   flat   to   the <\/p>\n
developer under a construction agreement dated 21.2.2008, under which the <\/p>\n
developer acknowledged the receipt of the total cost of construction, that is <\/p>\n
Rs.33,22,226   from   the   first   respondent   and   agreed   to   complete   the <\/p>\n
construction of the apartment and deliver the same to the first respondent by <\/p>\n
16.10.2008   with   a   grace   period   of   three   months.   Clause   7   of   the   said <\/p>\n
construction agreement dated 21.2.2008 between the first respondent and the <\/p>\n
developer provided for arbitration and is extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
       ” 7.        Arbitration  <\/p>\n
       a. In the event of any dispute between the parties in connection with the <\/p>\n
       validity, interpretation, implementation or breach of any provision of this <\/p>\n
       agreement or any other disputes including the question of whether there is <\/p>\n
       proper termination of the agreement shall be resolved through arbitration <\/p>\n
       by  appointing   a sole  arbitrator  by  the  Vice  Chairman  of  the  First  Party. <\/p>\n
       The   decision   of   the   Arbitrator   shall   be   final   and   binding   on   both   the <\/p>\n
       parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n       b. The arbitration proceedings shall be in accordance with the provisions <\/p>\n
       laid   down   in   the   Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act,   1996   and   shall   be <\/p>\n
       governed by the laws in A.P. subject to the authorized arbitration clauses. <\/p>\n
       The   venue   of   the   Arbitration   proceedings   shall   be   Hyderabad   and   the <\/p>\n
       language   shall   be   in   English.   All   the   proceedings   are   subject   to   the <\/p>\n
       exclusive jurisdiction of the courts at Hyderabad limits.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
On   the   execution   of   the   sale   deed   dated   21.2.2008   and   construction <\/p>\n
agreement dated 21.2.2008, the earlier  agreement for sale dated 16.10.2006 <\/p>\n
apparently lost its relevance, as the land-owners went out of the picture on <\/p>\n
                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
execution   of   the   sale   deed   regarding   the   undivided   share   and   a   fresh <\/p>\n
construction agreement dated 21.2.2008 was executive regarding completion <\/p>\n
of the apartment by the developer.\n<\/p>\n
6.      The first respondent issued a notice dated 31.7.2009 to the developer, <\/p>\n
alleging delay in construction and delivery of the apartment and called upon <\/p>\n
it to pay Rs.54,778 per month as compensation for the period of delay, that <\/p>\n
is   from   the   due   date   of   completion   (16.10.2008)   till   date   of   actual <\/p>\n
completion and delivery of the apartment. By another letter dated 15.9.2009 <\/p>\n
addressed   to   the   developer,   first   respondent   invoked   the   arbitration   clause <\/p>\n
contained in clause (7) of the construction  agreement  dated 21.2.2008 and <\/p>\n
sought reference of the disputes between them to arbitration. There was no <\/p>\n
response from the developer.\n<\/p>\n
7.      Thereafter, the first respondent filed a petition under section 11 of the <\/p>\n
Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act,   1996   (“Act”   for   short)   in   the   Andhra <\/p>\n
Pradesh High Court, for appointment of an Arbitrator. In the said petition, <\/p>\n
the appellant was brought into the dispute, for the first time, by impleading it <\/p>\n
as   a   respondent   along   with   the   developer.   In   the   said   petition,   the   first <\/p>\n
respondent alleged that the developer had failed to complete and deliver the <\/p>\n
apartment  in  terms  of   the  construction   agreement   dated   21.2.2008.\n<\/p>\n
                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
He also alleged that the developer had arranged the housing loan from the <\/p>\n
appellant; and that the appellant-lender had released the total loan amount to <\/p>\n
the   developer   without   ensuring   that   there   was   sufficient   progress   of <\/p>\n
construction and without verifying the `ground realities’ and thereby failed <\/p>\n
to   perform   its   minimum   obligations   and   responsibilities   as   a   lender.   He <\/p>\n
contended   that   the   circumstances   disclosed   collusion,   fraud   and <\/p>\n
misrepresentation   on   the   part   of   the   developer   and   the   appellant.   First <\/p>\n
respondent   further   alleged   that   the   following   disputes   had   arisen   between <\/p>\n
him   on   the   one   hand,   and   the   respondents   therein   (the   developer   and   the <\/p>\n
appellant) on the other, which required to be decided by arbitration :\n<\/p>\n
   a)      The   developer   committed   breach   of   contract   in   not   fulfilling   its <\/p>\n
           part   of   contractual   obligations   and   consequently   was   liable   to <\/p>\n
           refund   all   the   amounts   collected   from   him   and   the   appellant, <\/p>\n
           together with interest thereon at 24% per annum with monthly rests <\/p>\n
           from   the   date   of   its   respective   dates   of   collections   till   payment, <\/p>\n
           besides   the   interest   and   damages   that   may   be   charged   by   the <\/p>\n
           appellant.\n<\/p>\n
   b)      The   appellant   clandestinely   and   deliberately   released   the   entire <\/p>\n
           payments   to   the   developer   without   verifying   the   ground   realities <\/p>\n
           about  the progress  of construction  and  without  intimation  to  him <\/p>\n
           (first   respondent)   and   thus   committed   breach   of   trust   and   was <\/p>\n
           liable for all consequences.\n<\/p>\n
   c)      In   view   of   the   breach   of   trust   and   non-fulfillment   of   the <\/p>\n
           obligations,   the   developer   was  also   liable   to   pay   a   sum   of  Rs.15 <\/p>\n
           lakhs   towards   miscellaneous   expenditure   incurred   and   mental <\/p>\n
           agony suffered by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
      d)          The   developer   was   also   liable   to   pay\/reimburse   whatsoever   that <\/p>\n
                  may   be   demanded   by   the   appellant   in   respect   of   the   entire <\/p>\n
                  transaction.\n<\/p>\n
      e)          The   developer   and   the   appellant   were   liable   to   pay   the   first <\/p>\n
                  respondent   all   the   expenditure   incurred\/to   be   incurred   towards <\/p>\n
                  legal and other miscellaneous charges.\n<\/p>\n
      f)          The developer and the appellant were liable to compensate him for <\/p>\n
                  his financial and mental suffering.\n<\/p>\n
      g)          The developer and the appellant were liable to pay commercial rate <\/p>\n
                  of interest to the first respondent on the amounts found due from <\/p>\n
                  the due date till payment.\n<\/p>\n
The first respondent relying upon clause (7) of the construction agreement <\/p>\n
dated 21.2.2008, sought appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon <\/p>\n
the disputes between him and the developer and the appellant in respect of <\/p>\n
purchase of the apartment.\n<\/p>\n
8.          The   said   petition   was   resisted   by   the   appellant.   The   appellant <\/p>\n
contended that it had nothing to do with the dispute between first respondent <\/p>\n
and developer; that for the first time, the first respondent had chosen to make <\/p>\n
allegations against the appellant in the petition under section 11 of the Act, <\/p>\n
apparently in collusion with the developer, to avoid payment of EMIs due to <\/p>\n
the   appellant;   and   that   the   petition   under   section   11   of   the   Act   was   not <\/p>\n
maintainable against it, as the dispute was between the first respondent and <\/p>\n
                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
the developer (second respondent) and it was not a party to the arbitration <\/p>\n
agreement   invoked   by   the   first   respondent   (that   is   clause   7   of   the <\/p>\n
construction agreement dated 21.2.2008).\n<\/p>\n
9.      The designate of the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court by <\/p>\n
the   impugned   order   dated   12.4.2010   allowed   the   said   application   under <\/p>\n
section 11 and appointed a retired Judge of High Court as the sole arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
The   learned   designate   referred   to   the   construction   agreement   dated <\/p>\n
21.2.2008 between the first respondent and second respondent and clause (7) <\/p>\n
therein   providing   for   arbitration.   The   said   order   did   not   refer   to   the <\/p>\n
contention of the appellant that it was not a party to the dispute and therefore <\/p>\n
the petition under section 11 was not maintainable against it. In view of the <\/p>\n
impugned   order,   the   appellant   though   not   concerned   with   the   disputes <\/p>\n
between   the   first   respondent   and   the   developer,   is   made   a   party   to   the <\/p>\n
arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
10.     The   said   order   is   challenged   by   the   appellant   urging   the   following <\/p>\n
contentions :\n<\/p>\n
(i)     As the first respondent and the developer were the only parties to the <\/p>\n
        construction   agreement   dated   21.2.2008   containing   the   arbitration <\/p>\n
        agreement, the appellant could not be dragged into a dispute between <\/p>\n
        them, by impleading it as a party to the petition under section 11 of <\/p>\n
        the Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
(ii)     The   designate   of  the  Chief   Justice   ought  to   have  examined  whether <\/p>\n
         both   respondents   in   the   petition   under   section   11   of   the   Act   were <\/p>\n
         parties   to   the   arbitration   agreement   (clause   7   of   the   construction <\/p>\n
         agreement   dated   21.2.2008)   before   making   an   order   appointing   an <\/p>\n
         arbitrator under section 11 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
On   the   contentions   urged,   the   question   that   arises   for   our   consideration   is <\/p>\n
whether the appellant could be made a party to the arbitration, even though <\/p>\n
the   appellant   was   not   a   party   to   the   arbitration   agreement   contained   in <\/p>\n
clause (7) of the construction agreement dated 21.2.2008.\n<\/p>\n
11.      In this case, the first respondent made a demand for damages against <\/p>\n
the   developer   in   his   notice   dated   31.7.2009.   As   the   developer   refused   to <\/p>\n
comply, the first respondent invoked the arbitration agreement contained in <\/p>\n
clause (7) of the Construction Agreement dated 21.2.2008 between him and <\/p>\n
the   developer.   Therefore,   in   so   far   as   the   disputes   between   the   first <\/p>\n
respondent   and   the   developer   (second   respondent)   are   concerned,   the <\/p>\n
designate of the Chief Justice was justified in appointing an arbitrator.   But <\/p>\n
the   question   is   whether   the   appellant,   a   non-party   to   the   construction <\/p>\n
agreement containing  the arbitration  agreement as per clause  (7), could be <\/p>\n
roped in, as a party to such arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
12.      In  Jagdish   Chander   vs.   Ramesh   Chander<\/a>  [2007   (5)   SCC   719]   this <\/p>\n
court held :\n<\/p>\n
                                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
           “The existence of an arbitration agreement as defined under Section 7 of <\/p>\n
           the   Act   is   a   condition   precedent   for   exercise   of   power   to   appoint   an <\/p>\n
           arbitrator\/Arbitral   Tribunal,   under   Section   11   of   the   Act   by   the   Chief <\/p>\n
           Justice   or   his   designate.   It   is   not   permissible   to   appoint   an   arbitrator   to <\/p>\n
           adjudicate the disputes between the parties in the absence of an arbitration <\/p>\n
           agreement or mutual consent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
In Yogi Agarwal vs. Inspiration Clothes & U<\/a> [2009 (1) SCC 372], this court <\/p>\n
observed :\n<\/p>\n
           “When Sections 7 and 8 of the Act refer to the existence of an arbitration <\/p>\n
           agreement   between   the   parties,   they   necessarily   refer   to   an   arbitration <\/p>\n
           agreement   in   regard   to   the   current   dispute   between   the   parties   or   the <\/p>\n
           subject-matter of the suit. It is fundamental that a provision for arbitration, <\/p>\n
           to constitute an arbitration agreement for the purposes of Sections 7 and 8 <\/p>\n
           of the Act, should satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it should be between the <\/p>\n
           parties to the dispute. Secondly, it should relate to or be applicable to the <\/p>\n
           dispute.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
In  S.   N.   Prasad   vs.   Monnet   Finance   Ltd<\/a>  –   (2011)   1   SCC   320,   this   Court <\/p>\n
held:\n<\/p>\n
           “There   can   be   reference   to   arbitration   only   if   there   is   an   arbitration <\/p>\n
           agreement between the parties. If there is a dispute between a party to an <\/p>\n
           arbitration   agreement,   with   other   parties   to   the   arbitration   agreement   as <\/p>\n
           also   non-parties   to   the   arbitration   agreement,   reference   to   arbitration   or <\/p>\n
           appointment  of arbitration  can be  only with respect  to the  parties  to the <\/p>\n
           arbitration   agreement   and   not   the   non-parties……..As   there   was   no <\/p>\n
           arbitration agreement between the parties, the impleading of the appellant <\/p>\n
           as a respondent in the proceedings and the award against the appellant in <\/p>\n
           such arbitration cannot be sustained.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Therefore,  if `X’ enters into two contracts, one with `M’ and another  with <\/p>\n
`D’,   each   containing   an   arbitration   clause   providing   for   settlement   of <\/p>\n
disputes arising under the respective contract, in a claim for arbitration by <\/p>\n
`X’ against `M’ in regard to the contract with `M’, `X’ cannot implead `D’ <\/p>\n
                                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
as a party on the ground that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement <\/p>\n
between `X’ and `D’.\n<\/p>\n
13.    The existence of an arbitration  agreement between the parties to the <\/p>\n
petition under section 11 of the Act and existence of dispute\/s to be referred <\/p>\n
to   arbitration   are   conditions   precedent   for   appointing   an   Arbitrator   under <\/p>\n
section 11 of the Act. A dispute can be said to arise only when one party to <\/p>\n
the arbitration agreement makes or asserts a claim\/demand against the other <\/p>\n
party   to   the   arbitration   agreement   and   the   other   party   refuses\/denies   such <\/p>\n
claim or demand. If a party to an arbitration agreement, files a petition under <\/p>\n
section 11 of the Act impleading the other party to the arbitration agreement <\/p>\n
as also a non-party to the arbitration agreement as respondents, and the court <\/p>\n
merely  appoints an Arbitrator without deleting or excluding the non-party, <\/p>\n
the effect would be that all parties to the petition under section 11 of the Act <\/p>\n
(including   the   non-party   to   arbitration   agreement)   will   be   parties   to   the <\/p>\n
arbitration. That will be   contrary to the contract and the law.   If a person <\/p>\n
who is not a party to the arbitration agreement is impleaded as a party to the <\/p>\n
petition under section 11 of the Act, the court should either delete such party <\/p>\n
from the array of parties, or when appointing an Arbitrator make it clear that <\/p>\n
                                             12<\/span><\/p>\n
the Arbitrator is appointed only to decide the disputes between the parties to <\/p>\n
the arbitration agreement.\n<\/p>\n
14.    The arbitration agreement relied upon by the first respondent to seek <\/p>\n
appointment of arbitrator, is clause (7) of the construction agreement dated <\/p>\n
21.2.2008. The appellant was not a party to the said construction agreement <\/p>\n
dated 21.2.2008 containing the arbitration agreement. It is no doubt true that <\/p>\n
the   loan   agreement   dated   21.12.2006   between   the   first   respondent   as <\/p>\n
borrower,   and   the   appellant   as   the   creditor,   also   contains   an   arbitration <\/p>\n
clause (vide Article 11) providing for resolution of disputes in regard to the <\/p>\n
said loan agreement by arbitration. But the developer was not a party to the <\/p>\n
loan   agreement.   There   is   no   arbitration   agreement   between   the   developer <\/p>\n
and   the   appellant.   The   disputes   between   the   first   respondent   and   the <\/p>\n
developer cannot be arbitrated under Article 11 of the Loan Agreement. The <\/p>\n
first respondent invoked the arbitration agreement contained in clause 7 of <\/p>\n
the construction agreement (between first respondent and developer) and not <\/p>\n
the   arbitration   agreement   contained   in   clause   11   of   the   loan   agreement <\/p>\n
(between   appellant   and   first   respondent).     The   existence   of   an   arbitration <\/p>\n
agreement   in   a   contract   between   appellant   and   first   respondent,   will   not <\/p>\n
                                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
enable   the   first   respondent   to   implead   the   appellant   as   a   party   to   an <\/p>\n
arbitration in regard to his disputes with the developer.\n<\/p>\n
15.     The first respondent obviously cannot involve the appellant as a party <\/p>\n
to an arbitration in regard to his disputes arising out of the claims made by <\/p>\n
him   against   the   developer   which   are   covered   by   clause   (7)   of   the <\/p>\n
construction   agreement.   The   disputes   referred   to   in   the   petition   under <\/p>\n
section 11 of the Act relate to the claims of the first respondent against the <\/p>\n
developer.   It   is   however   true   that   there   is   reference   to   the   appellant   in <\/p>\n
disputes (b), (e) and (f) and reference to collusion between the developer and <\/p>\n
the appellant in those `disputes’. The first respondent has also alleged that <\/p>\n
the appellant  by releasing the payments to the developer without verifying <\/p>\n
the   ground   realities   about   the   progress   and   construction   and   without <\/p>\n
intimation to him, had committed breach of trust and therefore liable to pay <\/p>\n
compensation for the financial and mental suffering of the first respondent as <\/p>\n
also the legal and other expenses. No such claim was ever been made against <\/p>\n
the appellant before filing the petition under section 11 of the Act, nor did <\/p>\n
the   first   respondent   at   any   time   seek   arbitration   in   regard   to   such   claims <\/p>\n
against   the   appellant.   The   said   claims   against   the   appellant   cannot   be <\/p>\n
arbitrated   in   an   arbitration   in   pursuance   of   clause   (7)   of   the   construction <\/p>\n
agreement between the first respondent and the developer.\n<\/p>\n
                                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
16.     The first respondent did not issue any notice or demand making any <\/p>\n
claim   against   the   appellant   nor   did   he   issue   any   notice   claiming   that   the <\/p>\n
appellant   is   liable   for   the   consequences   of   non-performance   by   the <\/p>\n
developer, of its obligations. Nor did the first respondent issue any notice to <\/p>\n
the appellant seeking reference of any disputes to arbitration.   Therefore it <\/p>\n
could not be said that any dispute existed between the first respondent and <\/p>\n
appellant, when the petition under section 11 of the Act was filed. Even in <\/p>\n
the application under section 11 of the Act, there is no reference to clause <\/p>\n
No.(11) of the loan agreement which contains the arbitration agreement in <\/p>\n
regard to disputes that may arise between the appellant as lender and the first <\/p>\n
respondent as the borrower. There is no claim or dispute in regard to the loan <\/p>\n
agreement.   The   first   respondent   has   not   invoked   clause   (11)   of   the   loan <\/p>\n
agreement for deciding any dispute with the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
17.     If   there   had   been   an   arbitration   clause   in   the   tripartite   agreement <\/p>\n
among   the   first   respondent,   developer   and   the   appellant,   and   if   the   first <\/p>\n
respondent   had   made   claims   or   raised   disputes   against   both   the   developer <\/p>\n
and   the   appellant   with   reference   to   such   tripartite   agreement,   the   position <\/p>\n
would have been different. But that is not so. The petition under section 11 <\/p>\n
                                                15<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Act against the appellant was therefore misconceived as the appellant <\/p>\n
was not a party to the construction agreement dated 21.2.2008.\n<\/p>\n
18.     In   view   of   the   above,   we   allow   this   appeal   and   set   aside   the   order <\/p>\n
dated 12.4.2010 of the designate of the Chief Justice, in part, in so far as the <\/p>\n
appellant is concerned. We make it clear that the appointment of arbitrator <\/p>\n
under the impugned order shall remain undisturbed in so far as the disputes <\/p>\n
between   first   respondent   and   the   second   respondent   (developer)   are <\/p>\n
concerned. We further make it clear that this order will not come in the way <\/p>\n
of   first   respondent   making   any   claim   or   raising   a   dispute   against   the <\/p>\n
appellant or appellant making any claim or raising a dispute against the first <\/p>\n
respondent   and   either   of   them   seeking   recourse   to   arbitration   in   regard   to <\/p>\n
such disputes.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ___________________J.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                                  (R. V. Raveendran)\n\n\n\n\n\nNew Delhi;                                                        ___________________J.\n\nMarch 29, 2011.                                                   (A. K. Patnaik)\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011 Author: R.V.Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2691 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.34139\/2010] Deutsche Post Bank Home Finance Ltd. … Appellant Vs. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-240476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDeutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-24T10:11:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-24T10:11:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3205,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-24T10:11:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-24T10:11:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-24T10:11:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011"},"wordCount":3205,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011","name":"Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-24T10:11:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deutsche-postbank-home-fin-ltd-vs-taduri-sridhar-anr-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deutsche Postbank Home Fin.Ltd vs Taduri Sridhar & Anr on 29 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=240476"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240476\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}