Allowed

Mr. Puthucode Ramanathan Viswanathan v. M/s. Krishna Yadav Paivula

Telangana HC18 Oct 2024ARBAPPL/132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arbitrator Bhaskar Sathaiah appointed sole arbitrator to resolve dispute arising from Lease Deed dated 19.07.2022 under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 where respondent failed to appear.

What did the court decide?

Mr. B.Sathaiah appointed as sole arbitrator. Parties to appear before arbitrator on 23.11.2024. Pendency of miscellaneous applications stayed without order as to costs.

Mr. Puthucode Ramanathan Viswanathan Vs M/s. Krishna Yadav… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

133741

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF J USTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

ARBITRATION APPLICATION N o: 132 of 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

It/lr. Puthucode Ramanathan Viswanathan, s/o. Mr. Late p.K. Viswanathan. Aoe 91 years, Occ. Chartered Accountant, R/o. plot f.fo. S p-a i C;ffi; Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad- SO00.i 5.

¶9

...APPLICANT

¶10

AND

¶11

f\tlls. Krishna Yadav Paivula, S/o. Jangaiah paivula, Age: 53 years, R/o.21_67. thandu^{Patace,near Uttamnagar aui stop, Uttamhalar,} Mj[rigiri Rr"g#oov, Telangana- 500047.

¶12

llgg^{llegallyresiding at Plot No. 94, p & T Cotony,Tirumalagiri,} Secunderabad500015

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Arbitration Application filed under section '1 1 (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 R/w scheme for Appointment of Arbitrator, 2000 for the praying that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to kindly take the necessary measures for appointment of an Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration clause 14 of the Lease Deed dated 1g-O7 -2022 to resolve the disputes between the Applicant and the Respondent arising out of the said agreement

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Rohan Singh, counsel representing R.S. ASSOCIATES

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

I I I I

¶19

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶20

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. 132 of 2024

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Mr. Shiv Rohan Singh, learned counsel represents

¶23

R.S.Associates for the applicant.

¶24

None has appeared for the respondent despite servrce of notice.

¶25

This application is filed under: Section 1 1 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, [ 996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The applicant s,3eks appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute bet'vveen the parties.

¶26

The parties have entered into Lease Deed dated 19 .07 .2022. Clause 14 thereof contains an arbitration clause and the same is extracted below for the facility of reference:

¶27

"Any dispute or differences arising between the parties, unless settled amicably, sha-[ bt: referred to Arbitration by appointing a SoIe Arbitrator. The Arbitration sha-ll be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and^{(lonciliation}

Act, 1996 or arry statutory modification or respondents-enactment thereof. This deed shall be governed by the laws of India. The seat of the Arbitration shall be at Hyderabad."

¶32

A dispute has arisen between the parties. The applicarlt invoked the arbitration clar.rse and sent a notice dated 11.03.2024 to the respondent, but the respondent failed to respond to the aforesaid notice.

¶33

The dispute that has arisen between the parties needs to be resolved in the manner agreed to by the parties under the Lease Deed dated 19.07.2022.

¶34

Therefore, Mr. B.Sathaiah, former Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mancherial (resident of Flat No.2O2, NMSK SADAN, Road No.5, Sainagar, Nagole, Hyderabad) is appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator along with a copy of this order on 23.1L.2O24 at 11.00 a.m. Thereupon, the sole arbitrator shall proceed with the arbitral proceedings in accordance with law. Needless to state that it is open for the

¶35

¶36

!:r^. ;.. .,

¶37

respondent to raise all such^{objectionsars are permissible}

¶38

in 1a'r.1,.

¶39

Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is

¶40

allowed.

¶41

Miscellaneous applications pending, if aly, shall

¶42

stald closed. However,^there sha]l be^no order as to costs.

¶43

Sd/- C.V, MAL^{LIKARJUNA VARMA} JO|NT REGISTIAR tr.J\J\

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

Mr.^{B. Sathaiah, formerPrincipal DistrictandSessionsJudge'lt/lancherial} (residentofFlatNo.202,NMSKSADAN'RoadNo.5'Sainagar'Nagole' Hyderabad)^{(By Special Messenger) (Alongwith a Copy of affidavitand} material PaPers)

¶48

One^{CC to R S ASSOCIATES,Advocate[OPUCI}

¶49

Two^{CD CoPies}

karn/gh

: i I

.l i il

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811012024

ORDER

', <br>,/ '/) 'i-.
/'-
-)
i) 2 5 rri ;13

¶57

ARBAPPL.No.132 of 2024

¶58

THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION IS ALLOWED

Mr. Puthucode Ramanathan Viswanathan v. M/s. Krishna Yadav Paivula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Puthucode Ramanathan Viswanathan v. M/s. Krishna Yadav Paivula

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

M/s. Numbercrunchers Careers Private Limited Vs M/s. Kshethra Farms

Shamshiri Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr. a. Keshava Reddy

Kattamuri Snvsm Babu Vs Pamayyagari Parameshwari

Smt. Puthana Ramadevi Vs M/s Sahiti Constructions

Aravind Babu Bhonagiri Vs Pamayyagari Parameshwari

Smt. Puthana Sushmitha, Vs Sahithi Constructions