Allowed

Sri Sal Krishna Constructions v. M/s. Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Limited

Telangana HC14 Nov 2024ARBAPPL/168/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought appointment of an arbitrator under an arbitration clause in a sub-contract agreement dated 29.07.2010; the respondent did not reply to the Section 21 notice and alleged the agreement was forged but sought to raise that issue before the arbitrator. The court appointed a former Supreme Court judge as sole arbitrator and allowed the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Sal Krishna Constructions Vs M/s. Sri Avantika Contractors… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁷⁴ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE^{FOURTEENTHDAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENry FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICEALOK ARADHE}

¶6

ARBITRATION^{APPLIGAT]O N NO:1680F2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Sai Krishna^{Constructions,Rep by its Managing Partner'.} }Tt;i Fratnima n.aov,^{wlo.6. rviroti'rri.nn"Reddy,aoed 54 years,Flat No,301d} Dhruva, srinivasa viii#,'V"rl,is'da,^{Hvoetauat-38' Nbw Presently. at 2'} Fld,-Pl"i N;.zoo,"3"mir,^{-rlig,"aFivaetguda,RajendraNagarMandal'} Hyderabad-500048

¶9

...APPlicant

¶10

AND

¶11

M/s. Sri Avantika^{Contractors (l) Limited,} E"P,^{by its Manag-ing Director'K} rlri""oii*oav,^{nediii",eo -o#ice: #6108' Nilgiri Block'Aditya. En^clave'} ;G;rr;i,- t-iid"rroiJ'l'!too3d-^{Fresentlvat boor No' 8-2-603/2313 and} i's)5orlio2, iro^{rrooi HSrisummit, Abov6 sBl' Road No 10' Banjara Hills'} Hyderabad -500034,^Telangana.

¶12

...ResPondent

¶13

ArbitrationApplicationfiledunderSectionll(5)&(6)oftheArbitrationand ConciliationAct,2006nlw.scnemeforappointmentofArbitrator,2006praying that this Hon'ble^{Court may be pleased to'}

¶14

i. appoint^{an arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between.the} ''npplicant and Rlspondent in pursuant to work contract agreement dt' 29.07.2010,

¶15

ii. award the^{costs of the presentapplicationin favour of the Applicant'}

¶16

Counsel for the^APPIicant: Ms. D. Neeharika^ReddY

¶17

Counsel for the^ResPondent Ms. V. Soubhagya^{Valli representing} Mr. V. Seetharama^Avadhani

¶18

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶19

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE ARBITRATION APPLICATION N0.168 of2024

¶20

ORDERT

¶21

Ms. D. Neeharika Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶22

Ms. V. Soubhagra Valli, Iearned counsel represents Mr. V. Seetharama Avadhani, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

2 This application is hled under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the clisputes between the parties.

¶24

J Facts giving rise to filing of this application briefly stated are that the parties have entered into a sub_ contract agreement on 29.O7.2O1O. Clause^,J, of the aforesaid agreement contains an arbitration clause, which is extracted below for the facility of reference:

¶25

¶26

"J. Arbitration: In case dis^pute between^{tl.e parties} relating to the terms and conditions^{herei-n or any matters} concerning this agreement,^{the sameshall be referredto} arbitration and the^{parties shallbe boundby the awardof} the Arbitrator or Arbitrators.^"

¶27

The dispute between the^{pa-rties has arisen.} Therefore, the applicant invoked^{ttre arbitration clause} and sent a notice under^{Section21 of the aforesaid Act} on 18.01.2024. The respondent^{did not respondto the} aforesaid. notice. Thereupon,^{this application has been} hled.

¶28

Learned counsel^{for the applicant submitsthat the} dispute has arisen between^{the parties which requires} resolution in the^{manneragreed to by the parties'} Therefore, an arbitrator^{be appointed to adjudicatethe} dispute.

¶29

On the other^{hand, learned counsel for the} respondent submits^{that according to the respondent,} the sub-contract^{agreementdated 29'07'2OlO is forged} and fabricated^{document. Itroweuet,she fairly submits}

¶30

¶31

that the respondent be permitted to raise the a_foresaid issue in a proceeding before the arbitrator.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, a former Judge of the Supreme Court (resident of A-4O2, Jayabheri Orange Count5r, Gachibowli Financial District, Ranga Reddy District, Mobile No.95600 03598, 9gi00 35984) is appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Needless to state 1_hat it is open for the respondent to raise the issue with regard to genuineness of the sub-contract agreement dated 29.O7 .2O1O before the arbitrator.

¶33

¶34

The parties undertake to appear before the arbitrator on 30. L7.2024 at 11:00 a.m. along with a copy of this order.

¶35

Thereupon, the sole arbitrator shall proceed with the arbitral proceedings in accordance with law. .,/

¶36

tt41.l

¶37

Accordingly, the arbitration application is allowed.

¶38

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶39

stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶40

A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGIST R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of^lndia resident of A-4O2, Jayabheri Orange County, Gachibowli Financial District, Ranga Reddy District, Mobile No. 9560003598, 3810035984,^(By Special messenger) (along with a copy of affidavit and material^papers). 2. One CC to Ms. D. Neeharika Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V. Seetharama Avadhani, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Njbigh

I I I i

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411112024

ORDER

ARBAPPL.No.168 of 2024

¶51

:<br>1., E
.:
O 2 i iji'i Ii{
...,t
:*---.-_. -

¶52

ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION

¶53

rr\v{
uDt

Sri Sal Krishna Constructions v. M/s. Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Sal Krishna Constructions v. M/s. Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Hadi Ali Vs M/s. Kancharla Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Hira Multi Construction Ventures Private Limited Vs M/s. Kancharla Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Vishrut Vasusri Constructions LLP Vs M/s. Lakshmi Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Sudha Jaiswal Vs M/s. Go Green Infra Projects

M/s. Go Green Infra Projects Vs Sudha Jaiswal

M/s. Olectra Greentech Ltd. Vs M.L.R. Motors Limited