Chinnari Suryanarayana v. Nagireddy Srinivasa Rao
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2022 is disposed of. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ IBL
Judgment
Chinnari Suryanarayana S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 12-31(1)-1A, Official Colony, Srikakulam Town, Mandal and District, and others. versus Nagireddy Srinivasa Rao S/o. Prabhakara Rao, Occ: Business, Proprietor A Square Builders and Developers, R/o MIG-1 Plot No:54, Sector-III, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530 017. ORAL ORDER Dt: 03.02.2023 .. Applicants .. Respondent The above Arbitration Application was allowed, vide order dated
27.08.2021, appointing Mr. T. Venugopal Rao, Retired District Judge, as arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
Now, the present I.A.No.2 of 2022 has been registered on the basis of the letter dated 20.09.2022 addressed by Mr. T. Venugopal Rao, Retired District Judge, seeking appointment of another arbitrator in his place, as he has now been appointed as Presiding Officer of Land Acquisition (R&R) Authority, Vijayawada Region and, therefore, cannot proceed with the arbitration proceedings. It is also stated that the said arbitrator has returned the record. 2
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, this Court appoints Mr. R. Pundarikakshudu, Retired District Judge, as sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. The parties are at liberty to file their respective pleadings before the new arbitrator.
The fee of the arbitrator, place of arbitration and the other terms and conditions shall be settled by the new arbitrator in consultation with the parties.
Registry will send a copy of this order to Mr. R. Pundarikakshudu, Retired District Judge, D.No.53-40-31/17, Ward No.10, G.A. Reddy Arcade, K.R.M. Colony, Shivalayam Street, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the arbitrator now appointed may be directed to decide the issue of limitation. It is to be noted that once the arbitrator is appointed by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties have to raise any objection on merits before the arbitrator only and it is for the arbitrator to deal with the same in accordance with law.
Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2022 is disposed of. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ IBL
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 03 Feb 2023. The bench was PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.