Dispute arose between parties to an agreement of sale dated 06.01.2021 containing an arbitration clause. After notice invoking arbitration went unanswered, applicants sought appointment of a sole arbitrator. Respondent No.20 raised no objection; a prior similar application had already appointed the same arbitrator.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 160 OF 2024
Between:
AND
a Pamayyagari Pradeep Goud, S/o. P. Ramachander Goud, aged about 35 years, Occupation Cultivation, R/o. H.No.6-'12, Tellapur SOn62, Telangana State,
Occupation. Cultivation, H.No.4-57 i4, Near Pochamma Temple, Tellapur 502302, Telangana State.
:---'..'.), '/.'"-. ./'
Arbitration Application filed under section l1 (6) of Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 praying that for the reasons stakrd in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to appoint ;r sole Arbitrator for'the purpose of adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between petitioner and the Respondents 1 to 20 in respect of the terms of the Agreement of sale dated 06 01 2021
fr...irr,,nr&rt,taa 13,
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to implead the proposed respondent No. 20 as respondent No.20 in the above Arbitration Application.
Counsel for the Applicants Ms. V. Soubhagya Valli representing Mr. V. Seetharama Avadhani
Counsel for the Respondent No. 20 : Mr. Md. Kaleem Pasha representing Mr. M. Rajender Reddy
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.16O of 2o24 ORDER;
Ms. V. Soubhagza Valli, learned couLnsel represents Mr. V. Seetharama Avadhani, learned r:ounsel for the applicants
Mr. Md. Kaleem Pasha, learned counsel represents Mr. M. Rajender Reddy, Iearned counsel fcrr respondent No.2O.
2
\ .lm*
\ .ta. j-l
--rtr-ti
clause, which is extracted below for the facility of
reference:
"8. That, a:-ry dispute and difference arising between the parties shall be settled the dispute or difference within 48 hours from such dispute otherwise will be referred to the independent arbitrator mutually agreed by both the parties as per the procedure of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
Therefore, the applicants invoked the arbitration clause and sent legal notice on 22.05.2023. The respondents failed to hle reply to the aforesaid notice.
submitted that he has no objection for appointment of arr a,rbitrator.
-t
A. Santhosh Reddy, a former Judge of this Courtas Arbitrator
B. Accordingly, the arbitration application is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha1l stand
closed. No order as to costs
sd/- c.v. MALLTKARJUNA VAFMA JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
\
SECTION OFFICER
To,
DL/gh
a
il
I I i
I I I i
HIGH COURT
DATED:1811O12024
,1)'
,'t--
I .!
li:!
2 5 0[T 2[?[
ORDER
ARBAPPL.No.160 of 2024
ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) to resolve disputes arising from the agreement of sale dated 06.01.2021 containing an arbitration clause.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Babu Bhonagiri
Vishwapathi Ravi Kumar
Pamayyagari Parameshwari
Pamayyagari Ramachander Goud
Pamayyagari Pradeep Goud
Pamayyagari Hari Krishna Gaud
Alok Aradhe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
