Allowed

M/s Sri Saidurga Constructions v. Mr. Uppalapati Srihari Rao

Telangana HC21 Oct 2024ARBAPPL/129/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order admits an application seeking a three-month extension for a retired High Court Judge acting as sole arbitrator to dispose of proceedings. Noting the applicant's proof of failed personal service and substituted service attempts on the respondent, who did not appear despite notices, the court granted the requested time.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time granted for a period of three months for disposing of proceedings and passing an award.

M/s Sri Saidurga Constructions Vs Mr. Uppalapati Srihari Rao — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 129 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s Sri Saidurga Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Nandavada Muralidhar, S/o. Narayana Murthy, Cyber crest Apartments, Plot No. 187, G1, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500081

¶9

...Applicant

¶10

AND

¶11

Mr. Uppalapati Srihari Rao, S/o. GVK Ranga Rao, R/o. Flat No. 101, Cyber Crest Apartments, Plot No.^'187, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 50008't

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

Application under Sub-Sections (4) of Section 29 A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,^{'1996 praying} that the Hon'ble Court may be^pleased to^grant extension of time for a period of three. months to enable the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator, Judge (Retd.) High Court of A.P. in A.A. No. 25 of 2014 on the^{file of the} High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad for^passing of the Award.

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri C Sunil Kumar Reddy

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent :

¶16

¶17

The Court made the following Order :

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.^{VIJZ\YSENREDDY} ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.l29 OF²⁰²⁴

¶19

ORDER:(ORAL)

¶20

This application is filed under Section 29A⁽⁴⁾ of^the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,^(for short^{'the Arbitration} Act 1996') to grant extension of time for a^period of^{three (3)} months for disposing of the proceedings before the sole arbitrator, Sri Justice G. Krishna Mohan Reddy, Retired Ju,lge,^High Court^of Andlua Pradesh in Arbitration Application^(A.A.) No.25 of 2014.

¶21

It is submitted that A.A. No.25 of 2014 rvas^disposed of^by this Court by order dated 26.11.2019 appointing Sri^JusticeG. Krishna Mohan Reddy, Retired Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as arbitrator for resolution of dir;pute arising out development agreement dated 23.02.2007. The matter was^posted before the learned arbitrator on 18.11.2023 for evidence of respondent and for paying of arbitral fees. Learned Arbitrator also imposed a condition that if the respondent f,rils to adduce his evidence the counter claim stands terminated. Hrtwever, respondent and his advocate did not turn up on 18.11.2023 before the leamed

¶22

¶23

¶24

arbitrator.^{Sincerespondentfailedto complywith the condition} imposed by^{leamedarbitratorand did not turn up to adduce his} evidence^{and filedcounter, the matter was posted to 25 'll '2023 for} arguments^{on behalfof claimant.}

¶25

It is submitted that^{respondenthad been changing the counsel} intentionally and^{draggedthe proceedings before the leamed} arbitrator. On^{31.03.2024 the counsel for the respondentfiled} memo stating^{that the mandateof leamed arbitrator has expiredlong} back and he^{has become} funtus fficio^{tnderthe provisionsof the} Arbitration^{Act 1996.}

¶26

It is stated^{that as per the order dated 2l'06'2024 of this} Court, personal^{notice was taken out on respondent' The applicant} filed memo^{dated 13.09.2024in proof of service to respondent vrde} USR No.88630^{of 2024dated 13'09'2024' The noticesent to} respondent^{was retumed with endorsement"Item Retumed} Addressee Left^{without instructions"'Applicant filed application} for taking out^{substituted service of noticeon respondentand} permission was^{grantedby this Court by the order dated30'09'2024'}

I I i I

I l I ! , ;

I I I I i l '! :

was taken out in^'Deccan Chronicle' Accordingly publication English Daily newspaper and proof of publication was filed^vide USR No.99258 of 2024 dated 16.10.2024. De,spite^publication of

¶32

substituted service, there is no appearance^on bel-ralf^{of respondent}

¶33

As there is no contest from the respondents, the arbitration application is allowed granting three (3) months time for disposing of the proceedings and passing an award in Arbitration Application

¶34

No.25 of 2014. There shall be no order as to cosits.

¶35

As a sequel thereto, miscellant:ous applications,

¶36

if any, pending in the arbitration application star: d closed.

¶37

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

\ SECTION OFFICER

To,

Sri Justice G KrishnaJVohal RedlV, Retired Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Vitta No.19,.Rivqr Edgq Glted CommunYttr, Vin"n*rrii;^{- - -} Gandipeta (M). Near Narsinghlpost). R.R.Dist

¶42

( Along with Affidavit and Material papers )

¶43

( By Special Messenger )

¶44

One CC to Sri C Sunil Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OFUC]

¶45

Two CD Copies

VA/gh

i I l I I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11012024

ORDER

''--'ir'- '' '''r
,/ -,'
': ..')
2 5 EtT 2U{

¶53

ARBAPPL.No.129 of 2024

¶54

ALLOWING THE ARBAPPL

¶55

15 c4\o)
\ y__/r-v
_/-,OVr
')? '

M/s Sri Saidurga Constructions v. Mr. Uppalapati Srihari Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sri Saidurga Constructions v. Mr. Uppalapati Srihari Rao

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

Mr.Mandadi Raghavendar Reddy Vs M/s. Anish Educational Society (Aes)

Smt. Muthyala Prameela Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Margam Sandhya Rani Vs Smt Pamela Satpathy

Kommana Tejaswi Vs Union of India

Ms. Shalini Sood Awasthi Vs The State of Telangana

Yeluka Lalitha Vs State of Telangana and Another