Allowed

Mohan Reddy v. Smt. Aliya Devi

Telangana HC20 Apr 2022ARBAPPL/103/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arising from a development agreement dispute, the Court appointed a retired District Judge as sole arbitrator after observing the payment of adjournment costs and lack of respondent appearance.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri N. Shankaraiah, Retired District Judge, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties.

Mohan Reddy Vs Smt. Aliya Devi — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

lII

¶2

l: ii l, I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶4

AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL

¶6

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶9

RBITRATI N PPLICATION NO: 103 OF 2012

¶10

ARBITRATION API't,lCA1'lON No, 103 ol 20l2

¶11

Bctwccn

¶12

Sri C. Molr.rn .ll.ctidy, S/o. VcDktt Nirrsir^{t{cddy,Cicc; Bttsittess,lVo. I;lat No. 102,.11(M}

¶13

Anclr.rc, Prcmiscs No- 3-6-573, Op1;: Coucia^{l-lostcl, StIcet No.8, l-litrlayilllt rrallxr, l-l)'dcrabtl(l}

¶14

¶15

.. Pclitioocl'

¶16

(APplioait irr AA.No. I03 ot20l2 On the tllc 01'thc l-ligh Courl)

¶17

AND

¶18

I. Surt. Aliya Devi, W/or Lqte M. SriDivas^{Reddy, Or:cl IloLrscwife, l1/o.FlrrLNo. 502,} Ecst Anaid Bagh, SVS Rairlana Paradise, Malakgiri,^{I{.1i'. District.}

¶19

1. Ivl. Nirarju Reddy, S/o. Latc M. Srinivas Reddy, Occ:^{Houscwilb,R/o.Flat No. 5Q2,} East Aua[d Bagh, SVS R4nraua Paradise. Malakgiri, It.R. District.

¶20

1. Srirt. Shakuntala, Wo. llte M. Vittal Rgddy, Occi^{Household,R/o. 6-l'526,} Khailatabad, Hyderabad. i .

¶21

.1. Sri Mahel']dcr Reddy, S/o. Lntc M. Vittal Reddy,^{Oco: BLrsilless,} .(

¶22

-s. IQlairatabad,^{Sri M. Hruumrnth} IJyderabad.^Rcddy, s/o. [., rc M. Paqn Rcdd4I Occ: A$iculturo, Klrairatab:ldj Hyder bad.

¶23

1. Smt. Vi,rnala, Wo. Latc Nl. .'alihwanth . RcrJdy, I Occ: Househ;ld,' I i(raimtabad, llyderabad. I

¶24

1. Sri Slikarltll Reddy, S/o, Latc M. Yashwanth Rddlly, occ: Business, 6- l-5 K.hairatabad, I-lyderabad

¶25

1. Sri M. Sashikanth Reddy, Sio. Latc M. Yashwanllr^I{ dy. Occ: Br,rsiuess, 6- I-5 I(rairatabad, Hyderabid.

¶26

1. SIi M. Ravika[th Reddy, S/o. Late M. Yashwxnth Il y, Occl Business, 6-l-52.6, l(railatabad, I I y(lcrabad:

¶27

1. Srrt. M. I-axmarrrna, W1o. Latc lvl. Vc|kat ]lcddy, Occ llousehold, I I L Sri M. Subdshchallder Reddy, S/o. I-llto M. Vcukat Recl y, Occ: Employee, 12, Sri M. I{am Lcddy, S/o, Lotc M. Satya Reddy, Oo : Agriculturc, lt/o. 6- t-526, I(hailatabird, Liyderabad SIi M. SureDder Reddy, S/o. Lare M. Satya Reddy, died el LRs

¶28

1. M. Vishnu Va[dharr Redcly, S/o. M. SLrrendcr Reddy, o P[ivale Ernployee, R/o.^l-1. No. 3-7-4061,4./8, Nalan(l Nagar, Hydcrabad

¶29

1. M. Vcnu vardhan lleddy, S/o. M. SuIcr)de[ Redcly. O IlLrsirrcss, R/a. H. No. ii-7406/4/8, \aland Nagar, l-lydclabrrl

¶30

1. Surt. Ncela Devi, W/o. Late M. Jaglrrrohan l(cclcly, Oqc: I-loLrselrold. I1/o. C'fll No. 2024, CIiMK Estflte, Yeddu Mailararr-s02205. I

¶31

1. M. Nalasirnlra Redriy, S/o, Latc M. Jagannrohatr Rccldyl Occr Agliculture, R/o. CTR No.2024, CFMK Estate, Yecklr Mailaram-502205. ll

¶32

)i. M. Narotham Reddy, S/o. Latc M. Jaganmoharl Rcddyi. Occ: Ell]Ployee,^R/o. C'fR No. 2024. CFMI( Estale, Ye(i(lLr Mail rrnr-502205.ⁱ

¶33

I S. Snrt. Surrathi Ilcddy, Wo. Lalc M. Chaldra Shekhar lledrly, Occ: Household, lvo. CTI( No. 2024, CFMI( Estutc, Ycd(lu I'4ailariun-s021U5.

¶34

19, Srnt, Hcmalatha, Wo. Late M. Darrodar Rctlcly, Occ: Ilousehold. lt/o.^I l. No. l-2. 606/80, Flat No. 306, Park Vicw Afartnrcrlts. L.lC Ct,loriy, Intlla Nagirr', Flyclcrabacl.

¶35

1. Sri N'1. Viltram Simha Reddy, S/o. L:rle I,1. D;rmodal ILcddy. Ctcu: EItployee, Rio. li. No. l-2-606180, Flat No, 306, PaIk Vicw Apartmcnts, LIC Colony, Ilclra Nagar, Hydcr abad.

4\u>

=J-----*

"r I

',;

(

1 icultut^{e,R/o. Flat No} S/o^{r Late Nt. ChanrlraRcddy'} Occ:^Ag1 Il^{o gu liPel,l} varl^I{iddY, n Nayak 21. Sri^{M Nerl} lderlcy,^Vamh 501,^Vasvr Lifc^StYIe ior' Occi^Btl sitress,^{R/o' Flat} r<1 ,',,^i1f1ec1c\Y; Secun<letabSli^{Suresl'tcilan} Li^{dra ReddY,} fe^Stylc 'ResiderrcY,S/o . sri^M. V,,rmaLr^Naray N ayiak^La nc,^I(utrd anbagh, Iti^{o. iJeEumFlat No,} 5QScc1,^{rurdelab xdVasvt} na^{Raddy, occ} tlousdholci'Kutldat-iba^{(,h, Begumpel,} 23.^St.tr t. Sushma^{RecldY, W/oSri} idency,^M.NqtaYaVrma n Nayak^La0e' Vasvi^L ife^StyleRes 501, Occ:^{llctired' R/o' llNo 6-3-} Socu r.rderab^hc1 24.^{sd M} 34111^2lLl Bl.raPka^{13DwafakaPurt,r Recldy,S/o.} -P^latc 19 nnj'i^{to 24 Nl gutt'rCarhalldra} , e^Hyderabad not^nccesRccldY' sary Patties^{to thilPetition)} O,^O'\2 ,15,^{1(r, 1?,} ltRt '.o llcsPo11']c11ts/RcsPondcnts

¶44

App lication^{under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act,} 2006 P^{raying that in the} 1996 and^{Sc-!eme of Appointmentof Arbitrators,} stated in^{theaffidavit filedtherewith,the High Courtmay be} circumstancespleased to^{aPpoint the Arbitrator on behalfof the Respondentsto adjudicatethe} claims and^{disPutesbetweenthe applicant and theresponde nts and to award} costs of^{the application andPass such other order orordersas this Hon'bleCourt} may deem^{fit and Properin the circumstances of the case'}

¶45

¶46

This application^{comingon for hearing' upon perusingthe Applicationand} arsuments^{of Sri B Sheshu} affidavit^{filed in support th;H"i;#} ';;;;il'lln^i|; Kumar,^{Advocate for the ap-pficaniand none appearingfor Respondents'}

¶47

The Court^{madethe following: ORDER}

l-'

L irll {.{ H T il

., i l

THE HoN'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN ARBI TRATION APPLI CATION No.1030F2ot2

¶54

ORDER:

¶55

Heard Mr. B. sheshu Kumar, rearned counser for the applicant. None has appeared for the respondents despite serv1ce

¶56

2 On 13.04.2022 this Court had tmposed adjournment cost of

¶57

Rs. 10,000/- on the applicant lor seeking adjournment. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the above amount has been paid to.the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad as directed on 19.04.2022, receipt of which has been duly acknowledged. The same has been placed on record by the applicant by way of a memo dated 19.O4.2022.

¶58

3 This is an application under Section 1 1 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (briefly ,,the 1996 Act,, hereinafter) for appointment of arbitrator.

¶59

¶60

Applicant and respondents had entered into an Development Agreement-cum-Genera_l power of Attorney on 30.01.2016 whereby respondents had granted development rights to the applicalt to develop the schedule property. As per ciause-l7 of the aforesaid agreement, in the event of any dispute arising between the parties, the matter shall be referred to a mutually agreed arbitrator and provisions of the 1996 Act would be

I !

applicable. Award passed by the arbitrator^{wouid be binding on}

¶65

)

¶66

the parties. Clause No.17^{reads as under:-}

¶67

"Both the parties^{mutuallyagree that in the euent of} any doubt or disputes aising^{between the partiesherein,} tlrc matter shall be rekrred to a^{mutually agreed} Arbitrator and the Award passed bg^{the Arbitratorshall} be binding on each^party and^{the prouisions of the} Arbitration and Conciliations Act, 1996 shall^be applicable. Hou.rcuer, tlTe^{construction tuork shall not be} stopped bg either partg."

¶68

According to the applicant he had^{madesubstantial} investment in the project.^{Becauseof failure of the respondentsto} handover possession of the^{scheduleproperty to the applicant,} applicant could not complete the project'^{Severalletterswere} written by the applicant to the respondents^{to handover the} vacant possession of the entire^plot, but^{that was not done.} Applicant raised claims before the^{respondentsfor the expenses} incurred but there was no response.^{Ultimately, applicant issued} notice to the respondents under Section^{11 of the 1996 Act on} 25.O7.2012 for appointment of an^{arbitrator for settlement of the} claims made by the applicant.^{In fact, applicantsuggestedthe} name of Mr. D. Prem Kumar,^{Advocateas the sole arbitrator but,} there was no response by the respondents.^{It is insuch} circumstances that the^present application^{came to be filed.}

¶69

¶70

This arbitration application is pending since the year 2012. Despite notice respondents have not filed affidavit.

¶71

7 . After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and on due consideration made, I am of the opinion that applicant has made out a case for arbitration. Accordingly, Sri N. Shankaraiah, a retired District Judge, H.No.1 l_9-256, Street No.16, plot No.1 10, vijayapuri colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad, Mobile No.99 12o586g9, is hereby appointed as the sole arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute Setween the parties. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned arbitrator. parties to report before the learned arbitrator on 07.06.2022 at 11 :00 AM, where after learned arbitrator shal1 commence the arbitral proceedings.

¶72

B. Accordingly, arbitration application is disposed of. No costs.

¶73

Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this arbitration application sha1l stand closed.

¶74

Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i\l '' n:_

¶75

¶76

SECTiON OFFI-CER

¶77

To 1 Sri N.Shankaraiah, Retired District Judge, H.No.11-9-256, Street^{No.16, Plot} No.1'1 0, Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad. Mobile^No.991 2058689 (along with copy of Arbitration Application, affidavit, and material^paper affidavit) (By Special Messenger)

¶78

One CC to Sri B.Sheshu Kumar, Advocate^(OPUC) .7 One CC to Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶79

One CC to Sri M.P.V.N.V.Sastry, Advocate^(OPUC) E One CC to Sri Veerender Kumar Baheti, Advocate^(OPUC) o- Two CD Copies

¶80

One Spare Copy Kj V

HIGH COURT

DATEO;2010412022

ORDER

c I
1
.\ i.
'
ot!
I
irs

¶85

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.103 of 2012

¶86

DISPOSING OF THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION

¶87

)--/.--

¶88

Mohan Reddy v. Smt. Aliya Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Reddy v. Smt. Aliya Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Kancha Vs Lakshmi Kancha

Smt. Kaliki Srimahitha Vs Sri. Kolli Ravi Shankar Reddy

Smt. Vasanta Manasseh Vs M/s. Sarah Constructions

Suryodaya Infra Projects (I) Pvt.Ltd Vs Bharat Dynamics Limited

M/S Amritanshu Infrastructure and Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S Ivrcl Limited, Hyd and Another

Smt Tushyati Sai Maudgalya Vs M/s. Gharonda Builders and Developers