Disposed

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

Telangana HC8 Nov 2024ARBAPPL/211/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applications under Section 29A sought extension of the arbitrator's mandate in disputes arising from development agreements. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the court held such applications are not maintainable before it but allowed liberty to approach the competent court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to applicants to approach the competent court per Section 2(1)(e); no costs.

M/s. Hira Multi Construction Ventures Private Limited Vs M/s… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEI\4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK^ARADHE

¶5

ARBITRATION APPLICATION Nos:211 AND^{227 AF 2024}

¶6

ARBITRATION APPLICATION 211 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Hira lt/lulti Construction Ventures^{Private Limited, (Formerly known as Ms. Hira} Management Consultants Private Limited),^{CIN U45209TG1 998PTCO29125,Regd.} Office- 3- 5- 784t2, King Kothi X^{Road,Hyderabad, Telangana -500029,} Represented by its Dlrector and authorized^{persons[t{r Yqhiya Khan S/o. late} Mohammed Khin, Aged about 52^{years,Occ: Business, Res. 21- 4- 46147,Hussaini} Alam, Opp: Kaman, Hyderabad. ..Petitioner/ Applicant

¶9

AND

¶10

M/s. Kancharla Constructions Pvt.^Ltd. ,^{Havingits registered office at Plot No.} 2 and 3, Brundavan Colony, Gandipet^{Main Road Narsingi Village, Ranga} Reddy District, Hyderabad, Telangana,^{lndia - 500075... RespondentNo.'1}

¶11

[/r. Kancharla Prithvi Reddy,^{Director, Kancharla Constructions Pvt. Ltd.} '^H. No. 6- 1- 72,Flat No. B^- 301, Shree^{lv'laha Lakshmi Meadows, Lakdikapool,} .. ResPondent No.2

¶12

Hyderabad - 54.

¶13

Mr. Kancharla Akash Reddy, Director,^{Kancharla Cons{ructionsP!'t. Ltd.} '^H. No. 6- 1- 72, Flat No. B^- 301 , Shree^{Maha Lakshmi Meadows, Lakdikapool,} Hyderabad - 54. .. ResPondent No.3

¶14

Mr. Mi,za Firasath Baig, S/o^{Mirza Rafat Baig, Aged About 65 yrs, Rl/o H. No} 8- 3- 8331215, Kamalapuri Colony,^{Phase- 2, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.}

¶15

...RESPONDENT No.4

¶16

Arbitration Application Under Section^{11 (5) & (6) of the Arbitrationand} Conciliation Act 1996 R/w. Scheme^{for Appointmentof Arbitrators} ,^1996praying that this Hon'ble Court may be^{pleased to}

¶17

(a) Pass an Order under Section I 1 (5) &⁽⁶⁾ read with Section^{15 of the} Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to^{appoint an independentand impartial} Sole Substitute Arbitrator to resolve and^{adjudicate disputes betweenthe parties} arising out of the Development Agreements^{cum General Powersof Attorney} dated 29. 04.2016 executed between^{the Applicant and the Respondents}

¶18

' Counsel for the Applicant : SRl. KONDAPARTHY^{KIRAN KUMAR}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VADEENDRA^JOSHI

¶20

ARBITRATIO N APPLICATION NO: 227^{OF 2024}

¶21

Between:

¶22

Mohammed Hadi Ali, S/o. Hadi Ali,^{Aged about 40 years,Rl/o. Door No. 3-5-} 784 I 2, King Koti, Hyderabad. .. Applicant \o l

¶23

Mrs. Khatija Begum, W/o. Hadi Ali,^{Aged about 59 years,Rl/o. Door No. 3-5-} 784 t 2, Kihg Koii, Hyderabad. .. Applicant \o-2

¶24

Mr. Abdul Rahman, S/o. Hadi Ali, Aged about^{39 years, R/o. Door No 3-5-} 7B4l 2,King Koti, Hyderabad. .. Applicant No.3

¶25

Mrs. Huda Hadi Ali, D/o. Hadi Ali, Aged^{about 44 yearc, Rl/o.Door No. 3-5-} 784 I 2, King Koti, Hyderabad. .. Applicant No. 4

¶26

All the Applicants are currently residing at^{Riyadh, Kingdom ef $3rt-di Arabia} and are represented by their GPA^{Holder(i)Mr. Yahiya Khan, S/o.Late} Mohammed Khan, Aged about 53^years, Occ.^{Business,Rlo. 21 -4 -46147} ' Hussaini Alam, Opp. Kaman, Hyderabad.^{(ii) tt/ohammed lrfan lVlohiuddin} Ghori S/o l/lohammed Subhan Ghori^{Aged About 32 yrs, Occ. Services'} Rto.20-7-487, Taleem Mallad, lnside Fathe^{Darwaza, Hyderabad.}

¶27

AND

¶28

M/s. Kancharla Constructions Pvt. Ltd., , Having^{its registeredoffice at Plot} No.2 and 3, Brundavan Colony, Gandipet Main^{Road Narsingi Village, Ranga} Reddy District, Hyderabad, Telangana,^{lndia -} 500075.^{.. Respondent No.1}

¶29

Mr. Kancharla Prithvi Reddy,, Director, Kancharla Constructions^{Pvt. Ltd.,H.} No. 6-"1-72, Flat No. B -301 , Shree Maha^{Lakshmi Meadows, Lakdrkapool,} .. ResPondent No.2

¶30

Hyderabad -54.

¶31

Mr. Kancharla Akash Reddy, Director,^{Kancharla Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,H,} No. 6-1-72, Flat No. B -301, Shree Maha Lakshmi Meadows, Lakdtkapool, ...RESPONDENT No. 3

¶32

Hyderabad -54.

¶33

Arbitration Application Under Section 11⁽⁵⁾ & (6) of the Arbitration^and Conciliation Act, 1996 R/w. 15 (2) Scheme^{for Appointment} of^Arbitrators, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to.

¶34

(a) Pass an Order under Section 11(5) (6)read with Section 15 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an independent and impartial Sole Substitute Arbitrator to resolve and adjudicate disputes between the parties arising out of the 2 Development Agreements cum General Powers of Attorney, both dated 2410512016. and 1010812023 executed between the Applicants and the Respondents-

¶35

Counsel for the Applicant :SRt. KONDAPARTHY KTRAN KUMAR

¶36

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VADEENDRA JOSHI

¶37

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

¶38

¶39

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE}

¶40

ARBITRATION APPLIC^{ATIONNos.2Ll and' 227 of 2024}

¶41

COMMON ORDER:

¶42

Mr. Kondaparthy Kiran^{Kumar, learned counsel rcr the} applicants.

¶43

Mr. Vadeendra Joshi,^{learned counsel forthe}

¶44

respondents

¶45

These applications have^{been filed under Section}

¶46

29A of the Arbitration^{and ConciliationAct, 1996 (hereinafter} referred to as "the Act")^{seeking extension of mandate of the} Arbitrator.

¶47

It is not in dispute that the^{issue involved in these} applications is covered^{by decision of SupremeCcurt in} Rohan Builders (Indiaf Private^{Limitedv. Berger Paints}

¶48

India Limitedt.

¶49

1 2024 SCC Online SC 2494

¶50

¶51

l t,

¶52

In iriew of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the applications under Sectio n 29(A)of the Act are not maintainable before this Court. However, Iiberty is reserved to the applicants to approach the competent Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.

¶53