Allowed

Bhavanasi Venkata Manjula v. Smt. Pamayyagari Parameshwari

Telangana HC2 Feb 2024ARBAPPL/156/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicants sought appointment of an arbitrator for a property sale dispute. The court noted an agreement to arbitrate and the respondents' lack of representation, leading to the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Dr. Justice Shameem Akther as Sole Arbitrator.

Bhavanasi Venkata Manjula Vs Smt. Pamayyagari Parameshwari — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,LAKSHMAN

¶5

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 156 OF 2023

¶6

Betureen:

¶7

Bhavanasi Venkata Manjula, Wo. Bhavanasi Madhusudhana Rao, aged about.56 years, Oclupation. House Wife, R/o. No. 163/3 Mangalam Coloiny, Anna Nagar West, Chennai, Tamilnadu -600040.

¶8

Bhavanasi Madhusudhana Rao, Sio. B. Subrahmanyam, aged about 5g y.ears, Oqcupation. Employee, Rlio. No.163/3 Mangalam Colon!, Anna Nagar West, Chennai, Tamilnadu -600040.

¶9

...APPLICANT/ PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

Smt. Pamayyagari Parameshwari, Wo.Sri. late Sri pamawaoari Sathyanarayana,. about 59 years, Housewife, H.No. 1-9-278t51212:B;la)i Nagar, NearVenkateswara Temple, Ramnagar Gundu, Hyderabad 500044', Telangana State,

¶12

Sri. Pamayyagari Ram.a_chander Goud, S/o. Sri.^p. Arjun Goud, aged about 66 years, Occupation. Cultivation, H. No.6-1 2, Tellapur, SOZSOZ, Tela-ngana State,

¶13

¶14

1. Sri. Pamayyagari Pradelp Goud, S/o. Sri. P. Ramachander Goud, aged about 35 years, Occupation. Cultivation, H.No.6-12, Tellapur, SO23O2, TelSngana State

¶15

Sri. Pamayyagari Hari Krishna Goud, S/o.Late Pamayyagari Arjun Goud, aged about 66 years, Occupation. Cultivation, U.tto.6-t t, Tella-pur - SO23O2, Telangana State

¶16

S.n. lryayyagary Pandu Gou-d, S/o. Sri. (late) P. Gurulingam Goud, aged about 79^ye_ars, Occupation. Cultivation, H.No. 4-29, Tellapur SO23O2,Telangana State

¶17

Sri. Pamayyagari bhoopal goud, S/o. Sri. P. Pandu Goud, aged about 47 years, Occupation. Cultivation, H. No 4-29, Tellapur 5023021 Telangana State,

¶18

Sri. Pamayyagari Venu Goud, S/o. Sri. P. Pandu Goud, aqed about 43 vears. Occupation. Cultivation, Rl/o. Beside Hanuman Temple, Tellapur 502302, Telangana State,

¶19

S.n. iagayyagari Karan Gaud, S/o. Sri. (late) P. Gurulingem Goud, aged about 66 years, Occupatbn. cultivation, H.No.4-30, Tellipur, SO23;O2: Telangana State,

¶20

Sri. Pamayyagari Sridhar Goud, S/o. Sri. p. Karan Goud, aged about 44 years, Occ-upalion. cultivation, H.No.4-57 /4, Near pochamira Temple, Tellapur 5O23O2, Telangana State,

¶21

10.Sri. Pamayyagari Arun Goud, S/o. Sri. p. Karan Goud. aoed about 43 vears -O^cgypgtren,^{cultivation, R/o. H.No.3-54l2A,Hanuman'feinpte,ieifapu?---'} 502302, Telangana State,

¶22

Sri. Pamayyagari Santosh Goud, S/o. Sri. p. Karan Goud, aged about 41 years, Occupation. cultivation, R/o. H. No. 4-30, Tellapur,'feiangina State,

¶23

tZ !11 e.l1aW9gari Meghanath Goud, S/o. Sri (Late) p. Narayana Goud, aged aooul 50 years, occupation. Cultivation, Ryo. H.No.4-20, Trillapur SOZ3Oz, Telangana State,

¶24

Sri. Pamayyagari Nishanth. Goud, S/o. Sri Meghanath Goud, aged about 30 years, Occupation. cultivation, R/o. H.No.4_20] Tellapur 50r30Z, iet;;g;;; State,

¶25

14.Sri. Pamayyagari Vishal G9ud, S-/9, Sri Meghanath Goud, aged about 2g y9q1s.,-OgcqOation. culfivation, H. No.4-20,-Beside Hanuman'ierpfe,-fJfapw 502302, Telangana State

¶26

15.gri Pamayyagari Narsing Rao (Babu Goud), S/o. Sri. flate) pamawaoari venr(at Krishnaiah Goud, about 63 years, occupation. cultivation, ieiident of 9-3/1, Ramachand rapura m, Tellapui, Sangared'dy oistrrct, iJringi; 56i;,'

¶27

'l6.Sri. Pamayyagari Harish Goud, S/o. Sri. p. Narsing Rao Goud, about 36 years, Occupation. Cultivation, resident of g-3 I t,^{-namachin-OrrpJa;,} Tellapur, Sangareddy District, Telangana State,

¶28

17.Sri. Pamayyagari Avinash Goud, S/o. Sri. p. Narsinq Rao Goud. aoed about l!,y_e39,^Occupation. ^Cuttivatisn,^{resident of s_eli,hamaJf,-;;r;i;;";,-'} r eIapur, Sangareddy District, Telangana State,

¶29

Sri. Pamayy_agari Surende^r Goud, S/o. Sri. (late) pamayyagari Venkat Krishnaiah Goud, about 50 years, occupatiirn. iurtivati-oh. iesroent of g-3/1 Ramachandrapuram, Tellapur, Sangareddy Oistrici, iefan'gi-na

¶30

sahiti constructions, a registered partnership Firm having its principal place of business at^ptot No. 1222, a-2-2g3tgztNiLza i+, rou"rtn fbor,-H;"8 N;. 36, Jubitee Hiils, Hyderabad.SOO_033, Tetangana Strte, iepr"#hi;-6ili; Partner, Smt. B.^pdrvathi, Wo. B. t_atsnmi ifaiiyanr, iryd.rl-UrA--soo6ai. Telangana State.

¶31

ZO f{agt[a ^lgding,.a partnership company or firm having its office at Mlc_122. ?9^1L91o!j,_^{NE Layou!'Near' c'ancer HospitEr,'-5ljtGai.,iiiror,lil,} vrsaKnapatanam, Andra fra{egh,^ leOpsented by its Managing partnei sri.Budlaqju Baranarasimha Rgju s/o.'Budharalu R'ama na;u Jdeo'auoui bi X?iT,-o^"9_qp-?tiorr.^{Business, H/o. ptot r.to.zg'-J_sa,Laraiavu"vinai-iie'ri} shtvaparavathi Theater, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶32

Respondent No. 20 impleaded as per court order dt.05.0.1.2024 in lA 01 of 2023 in AA 156 of 2023'

...RESPONDENTS

// ;/

l ri rl

Arbitration Application Under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act' 1996 Read with Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrator, 2000 praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a Sole Arbitrator for the purpose of adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the Respondents 1 to 20 in respect of the terms of the Agreement of sare dated 08.10.2021

¶37

Counsel for the Applicants :Ms. V. SOUBHAGYAVALLI , REp SRI. V.S.R. AVADHANI

¶38

Counsel for Respondent No.19 : SRI p. ROy REDDY

¶39

Counsel for Respondent Nos. I to 1g : NONE APPEARED

¶40

The Court made the foltowing ORDER:

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{K. LAKSHMAN}

¶46

ARBITRATION APP LICATON No.156^{OF 2023}

¶47

OR.DER:

¶48

This Arbitration Application is filed under^{Section 11 (6) of the} Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996^{(hereinafter 'the Act')seeking} appointment ofarbitrator to resolve the^{disputes between the parties.}

¶49

Heard Ms. V.Soubhagyavalli, Ieamed^{counsel representing} Sri B.S.R.Avadhani, leamed counsel for the^{Applicants and Sri P.Roy} Reddy, leamed counsel appearing for respondent^{No.l9. Despite service} ofnotice, there is no representation on behalf^{of respondents,I to 18.}

¶50

The Applicants herein have entered^{into an agreementof sale} dated 08.10.2021 with respondent Nos.l^{to 18 with regardto sale of flat} No. I 103 in I l'h floor in Tower 01^{with super-builtup area of 2001 sq-ft.,} with 46 sq.yards of undivided share of tand with^{one car parking slot} with the boundaries mentioned therein. Total sale^{considerationagreed} was Rs.83,04,000/-. According to the Applicants,^{they have paid entire} sale consideration and in proof of the^{same, they have filed details of the} RTGS cheques etc. vide memo No.3003, dated^{09.01.2024andthe same} were received and acknowledged by 19th respondent,^Developer.

¶51

¶52

In the said agreement of sale, it is specifically agreed that l9,h respondent/Developer assured the Applicans herein that Ftat No. u03 falls to its share and it has absolute right to execute sale deed with regard to the said flat. According to the Applicants, respondents I to lg have already sold the said flat to Respondent No.20 by way of execuring a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.8305/2021, dared 13.02.2021. Thus, there is suppression of fact with regard to execution of the said sale deed while entering into agreement of sale dated 0g.10.2021. Therefore, there are disputes between the Applicants and respondents.

¶53

5, Clause No.9 of the said agreement of sale dated Og.lO.2O2l

¶54

deals with the arbitration and the same is extracted below:-

¶55

In case ofany dispute arise between the parties, have to settle amicable in the event ofany failure to settle the dispute or difference shall be referred to the arbitrator and the arbitration proceedings will be conducted according to the provisions of the lndian Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration award will be binding upon the both the parties and final. The place of the arbitration will be at Hyderabad and proceedings will be in English.

¶56

Invoking the said clause, the Applicants herein have issued notice dated

¶57

09.05.2023. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said notice, respondents did not come forward to resolve the disputes. Therefore, the Applicants herein have filed the present application.

¶58

¶59

¶60

As discussed supra, despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondents except lgth respondent. l9'h respondent has filed a memo vide USR No. I 622 dated 05.01 .2024 stating that it has no objection in appointing Arbitrator.

¶61

a. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there are disputes between the Applicants and respondents with regard to sale of the aforesaid flat. The same are arbitrable disputes. Thus, this Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the Applicants and respondents.

¶62

In light of ttre aforesaid discussion, the^present Arbitration Application is allowed. Accordingly, Dr Justice Shameem Akther, former Judge of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶63

As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶64

//TRUE COPY//

¶65

Sd/. B.S. CHTRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR P

¶66

SECTION^OFFICER

¶67

fl or. .ru.ti"e^{shameemAkther, former Judge_of the High court of} ';i::r':til$.'#t*,r,Jillt:iqgf:lir:i[ir-{ii'0:ifi *"al

¶68

;;ffiy, nladlioia^{, rJi"=nqu-;t"- sbo 034' ( Bv specialMessenger)} iir..6^{*iitt a copy of amuivitand material papers)}

da--

One CC to SRl. V. S. R.AVADHANI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CG to SRl. P. ROY REDDY, Advocate [OPUCI

¶73

¶74

Two CD Copies

kul

t I I

¶79

(j I

¶80

HIGH COURT DATED:0210212024

¶81

¶82

ORDER

¶83

ARB.APPL.No.1 56 of 2023

¶84

.6E STA.IE
(
e 21 tiB 2u[ S'i
oo
+
i
DESI,,\T

¶85

ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION

¶86

Bhavanasi Venkata Manjula v. Smt. Pamayyagari Parameshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavanasi Venkata Manjula v. Smt. Pamayyagari Parameshwari

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

Kolipaka Sree Vishnu, Vs Kolipaka Laxmi

KusumaLaxmi Narayana Vs Pinna Karunakar

M/s. Koneru Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. Sembcorp Energy India. Limited

Gankidi Damoder Reddy Vs Sri. Erukula Rajender

Sri.Gourishetty Srinivas, Vs M/s. Karvy Data Management services Limited

Dubba Ashok Sunder Vs The State of Telangana