Allowed

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

Telangana HC8 Nov 2024ARBAPPL/172/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 11(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute arising from a Development Agreement between the applicant and respondents, finding the parties had not objected to the appointment.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Justice P Naveen Rao as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and the arbitration application is allowed.

M/S. Vishrut Vasusri Constructions LLP Vs M/s. Lakshmi Balaji… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁷⁴ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY HE EIGHTH DAY oF NoVEI,BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

ARBITRAT to N APPLICA TION NO:'t 72 0F 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s' Vishrut Vasusri constructions LLp, Having its registered office at 3rd Floor, v.V.s. crest. pror tto e-iJslr- i.;ii;: i,'ernju, Hiils, Hyderabad - .s00024, Represented ov itJ nrir,bi,rlii siitii#rv, Mr. pannatd Harsha Vardhan

¶10

...Applicant

¶11

AND

¶12

I Sri M/s Ram Lakshmi Baraii .^{Nggrl Cotony,} Deverop-ers^{'ch_J."nrpri,"r,'trilii'} pvt Ltd., Having its rrirg"r, registered Secunderabad_87,oflie at 11-74, y.e.pJ9j9"leq by its Mandging Direcdor nllr^'rutra6-i Siin,rr.

¶13

2 Aurnaot \iflnrvas. S/o. Late K. Narsimha, Aoed.5O years, Occupation n a m ru a ! ii' c 6i oi v,'ci"u"n n, p dra m ;, Ba raji l[il;; :

¶14

35i[.??, fjt _ I I or6a r?,'

¶15

J Radha Kuthadi, Director of Lakshmi Balaji Developers pvt Ltd., Having its Ram rvigiid"-r""i, 6iEnn,p,r.,,,-rj,i"ii'r.i,'g,r.

¶16

!?tJ:,fJ::"8:f: fil,;li:sri

¶17

^ Arbitration Apprication fired under section 11(4) &t.l or rn"'ATffi:l"*: Conciliation Act, 1996 praying that this Hon,bi; Cou; may be pteased

¶18

To appoint the sore Arbitrator as per Articre XXil r of Deveropment Agreement cum General power of Attornuy atitea za.e.z,2.l read with Section 11(4) and (5) of Arbitration ani Concitiation nct, f gSO io 31:!:il: ^the .disputes/claims^{between ftre Applicant} and the Kespon,ents, in terms of the contractuar vioration oi'tne oererofmeni Agreement cum General power of Attorn.y ait"O 2g.12.2021

¶19

To award costs of the Arbitration Application. '

¶20

Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. _Disha Agarwat, representing Mr. Rohit Pogula

¶21

Counsel for Respondents Mr. K.S. Sai Pavan, representing Mr. M.V. Subba Reddy

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'B^{LE THE CHIEFJUSTIC E ALOKARADHE}

¶24

ARBITRA-^{TION APPLICATION No.172 of 2o24}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Ms. Disha^{Agarwal, learned counsel representing} Mr. Rohit^{Pogula,learned counsel for the applicant'}

¶27

Mr. K.S.Sai^{Pavan, learned counselrepresenting}

¶28

Mr M.V.Subba^{Reddy,Iearned counsel for the respondents'}

¶29

This application^{is filed under Section l1i4) and} (5) of the Arbitration^{and Conciliation Act' 1996 (herr:inafter} referred to^{as "the Act"). The applicalt seeks appointlnent of} an arbitrator^{to resolvethe dispute betweenthe partier;'}

¶30

The^{parties have entered intoDevelopment} Agreement cunt^{GeneralPower of Attorney dated 28' L2'2O21'} Article XXIII^{thereof contains an arbitrationclause and the} same is extract.ed^{below for the facility of reference:}

¶31

" Artlcle^{XXIII Dispute Resolution}

¶32

In the e./ent of dispute(s),^{best e{Iorts shallbe made to} resolve Lhem by mutual^{discussionsamicablyln the} event the Parties^{are unable to arriveat an acceptable}

¶33

¶34

(<br>-

¶35

solution to the dispute(s) within thirty (30) days from the date of dispute(s) arising, the same shall be referred to Arbitration in accortlance with the procedure specified in the Arbitration and Conciliatron Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996) as amended from time to time.

¶36

Arbitration.

¶37

Arbitration Proced.ure :

¶38

Any dispute or claim of any kind whatsoever between or arnong t].e Parties in connection with or arising out of this Agreement or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof (hereinafter referred to as a "Dispute')^shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration conducted by a sole arbitrator appointed with the mutual consent of the parties. The parties agree that they shall attempt to resolve through good faith consultation, any such Dispute between any of the Parties and such consultation shall begin promptly after a Party l-ras delivered to another party a written request for such consultation. This Agreement and ttre rights and obligations of the Parties shall remain in full force and effect pending the award in such arbitration proceeding, which award, if appropriate, sha_ll determine whether and when any termination sha_ll become effective.

¶39

Venue oJ Arbitretion:

¶40

The seat of the Arbitration shall be Hyderabad only and shall be conducted under, and in accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and all other relevant laws applicable on date. The language

¶41

¶42

of the art>itration^{shall be English alrd the award shal'l} be bindir.g on^{the Parties"}

¶43

4 . A di spute^{has arisen between the parties 'The} aPplicant invok:ed^{the arbitrationclause and sent a notice} under Section 2l^{of the Act dated O8'O5'2O24 tothe} respondents, but the^{respondentsfailed to respond to the} a-foresaid notice,

¶44

The dispute^{that has arisen between the parties} needs to be resolved^{in the manner agreed to by the parties} under Development^{Agreement cum General Po'rer of} Attorney dated 28. 12.2O2L'

¶45

The parties^{haveno objectionif the sole Arllitrator} is appointed.

¶46

¶47

In view of^{a-foresaid submissionand taking into} account the fact that^{admittedly an agreementnamely} Development l\greement^{cum General Power of Attorney} dated28.|2.2a2Lexistsbetweentheparties,whichhasan arbitration clalLse, Mr.^{Justice P Naveen Rao' a former Acting} Chief Justice of this^{Court (Resident of #3001' MlHome}

¶48

¶49

Bhooja, Block-A, plot Nos.22_24 & 31-33, Rayadurgam, Ranga Reddy District, Mobile No.83740123 11) is appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the pa-rties. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator along with a copy of this order on 21.12.2024 at 11.OO a.m. Thereupon, the sole arbitrator sha-ll proceed with the arbitral proceedings in accordance with law.

¶50

B. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application IS allowed.

¶51

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stald closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

Sd/- M. VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGIST R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 2. J- ffi uu[g,'+,tiffiry;,,:,'lu,, 4. Njb/ch

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811112024

1 HES
>
d 1$ il$Y ?ul oz
-b
*
t
Qss PAt cts

¶62

ORDER

¶63

ARBAPPL.No.172 ot 2O24

¶64

ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION

¶65

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Amit Srivastava Vs Sahiti Constructions

M/s K.D. Solar Systems Vs M/s. Mytrah Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. Chagaleti Siddhartha Vs Incor Padmachandra Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.

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.

Pratap Health and Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hindustan Unilever Limited