M/s. Varam Civil Works, Vs Naraharisetty Sudhir Kumar

M/s. Varam Civil Works, Rep. by its Prop. Ram Nitesh Jaldu, S/o. J.R.V. Subba Rao, 4th Floor, Uttara Elite, 15/551, Plot No. 11, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, SBI Road, Machilipatnam-521 002.

¶11

...Applicant

¶12

AND

¶13

Naraharisetty Sudhir Kumar, S/o. Sri Krishna Door No. 20,143-D, Srikrishna Nagar, Behind Zilla Praja Parishad, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ...Respondent Arbitration Application filed under Sub-Secs.(5&6)^ofSection 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Para (3) (i) (c ) of the Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, 2006 as framed by High Court, Amaravathi praying that the High Court may be pleased to appoint^{anArbitratortoresolve} the dispute between the Applicant and the respondent^{basedontheclause} ‘n’contained in Memorandum of Understanding dated 19-10-2018.

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms. Mallavolu Nikitha Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Yaswanth Gade The Court made the following order:

¶16

r ' IT

¶17

APHC010194202025
H-
SI

¶18

Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Sr.No:-12 [3441]

¶19

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 16 of 2025

¶20

M/s. Varam Civil Works

¶21

...Applicant

¶22

Vs.

¶23

Naraharisetty Sudhir Kumar

¶24

...Respondent

¶25

¶26

Advocate for Applicant Ms. Mallavolu Nikitha Advocate for Respondent Mr. Yaswanth Gade

¶27

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

¶28

DATE : 19th September 2025

¶29

Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ:

¶30

This is an application filed under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising out and in connection with the Memorandum of Undertaking, dated 19.10.2018.

¶31

Disputes are stated to have arisen between the parties which, according to the petitioner, are required to be settled in terms of clause ‘n’ of the MOU, dated 19.10.2018, through the mechanism of arbitration.

¶32

For purposes of reference, clause ‘n’ is reproduced^hereunder:

¶33

“n) Any disputes arise between the parties regarding^theterms of the agreement, execution, it must be settled mutually or by way of

¶34

HCJ A.A.No.l6of 2025

¶35

r

¶36

an Arbitration, at Machilipatnam only and his Award^{isfinalandanyof} the parties should not approach the Court of Law. ”

¶37

According to the petitioner, notice, dated 29.03.2025,^invoking arbitration clause was served upon the respondents,^{whichwasrespondedto} by the non-applicant. In the reply notice, the stand taken was that the agreement between the parties had ceased to exist and^{thattheMODdidnot} have any sanctity in law and further that the notice^{issuedafterlapseof5} years and 10 months from the date of the MOU did not carry^{anysanctityin} law and that the transaction was barred by time.

¶38

On perusing the material on record, it can be seen^thatthere does exist a dispute between the parties which is required^toberesolved through the mechanism of arbitration. The issues with^{regardtothelimitation} and the issue with regard to the sustainability of^{theclaimsmadebythe} petitioner can be gone into by the arbitrator.

¶39

In Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh Vs. ASAP Fluids Pvt Ltd. and another^ the Apex Court held that the referral^{CourtunderSection11(6)} of the Act, 1996, must conduct only limited enquiry^{forpurposesofexamining} whether the application filed under Section 11 of the^{Act,1996,hasbeenfiled} within the period of limitation of three years or not,^andthat it would not be proper for the referral Court to indulge in any intricate^{enquiryintothequestion} of whether the claims raised by the petitioner are^{timebarredandfurtherthat} such a determination must be left to the decision of^{thearbitrator.}

(2025) 1 see 502

3

i; r

HCJ A.A.No.16 of 2025

¶44

Be that as it may, the present application is allowed. Mr. G. Satya Prabhakara Rao, retired District Judge, is appointed as an Arbitrator, who shall enter upon the reference and adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of and in connection with the MOU, dated 19.10.2018, and render the Award within the statutory period. The parties shall be free to file detailed claims and counter-claims before the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to claim his fee in terms of the provisions^{oftheFourthScheduleof} the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. No costs.

¶45

Consequently, connected pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

A copy of this order be communicated to the learned^Arbitrator on the address mentioned herein below:

¶47

Mr. G. Satya Prabhakara Rao, District Judge (Retd.), Sector — 1, Plot No.9, Lotus Land Mark, Kedareswari Peta, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District - 520011, Cont. No. 77805 73776.

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR V" SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51