Business v. District, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUJOY PAUL
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Smt Boda Mourya,. Wo_ -Sri. Boda Ravi Raj, aged about 42 years, Occ Business, R/ o. Plot No.839/8, Road No.44l A, jubilee Hiils, Hyderabad ...APPLICANT
AND M/s. E lnfra IRA Ventures; (formerly known as M/s. ElpL lnfra projects) A legistered Partnership Firm Having its office at Sy. No 476lp, ORR GanOibet urrcte, ttarsrngt Flyover, Manchirevula Village, Gandipet Mandal. Rariqa Reddy District Represented by its Managing pirtner, M. ilamesh Ready, ;i;; f .ilgt.fo,3?,Sy. No. 135, Brindavan Cotony, Gandipet, nanga iieOay District, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT
Arbitration Application Under section 1i (5) & (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 R/w. scheme for appointment of Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 R/w. scheme for Appointment of Arbitrator, 1996 praying that this Hon'ble court may be. pleased to appoint an independent sore Arbitrator as envisaged under section I'l of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 read with Para 2 of rhe scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 2000 for adjudication of dispute between the Applicant and Respondent as detailed in this petition and such other claim or claims for which the Applicant is legally enti ed to, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Applicant: SRt. PAMULA VAMSHI KRTSHNA Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. MADHAVI pRlyA MANTENA The Court made the following
ORDER:
THE HON'EI),E THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY IPAUL ,I,RB I TRATION APPLICATION No.56 of 2O25 ORDER: Sri Farr ula Vamshi Krishna, learned cotLnsr,l for the applicant irr c rVIs. Madhavi Priya Mantena, learned c<.,unsei for the respon Ccn t
2. Witlr fr -',tonsent, hnally heard. 3- Dr-rring 11)e course of hearing, learned coltnsr'1 for the parties rea:he'rl to a consensus. It is agreed that ther,t exists a dispute u'hicl'r requires to be resolved by an arbitrator. Thus, it is agreed t.,rzrt € former High Court Judge may be appointed to take up the z rtrtration.
4. In ,zit:rr of the consensus arrived at, Sri Justice C.V.Ramuhr, a lormer High Court Judge (Resrdent of H.No.2-2 1t3731 (A-231, Durgabai Deshmukh C<>1ony, Bagh Amberpet, I{,.,cr:rabad 5OOO13, Mobile No.8!)7g()21;;}1g), is appointed rts r;cL: arbitrator to adjudicate the clispute between the parties.
5. To: Acco -d in51v, the arbitration application is disposr,:d of //TRUE COPYII sD/.K. SRINI VASA RAO JOINT FIEGISTRAR I SEC]TIOIi t OFFICER
Sri Justice C H.No.2_2_18/ ad, HYderab py oi v.yith a co V flanrulu. a former High Court Judge ( Resident of kf if ,:xl,*i1:",,3;;ulir[,;".itt,#i]?, jiit,.., r :.i':. l I
One CC to SRI PAMULA VAMSHI KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRl. MADHAVI PRIYA MANTENA, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CD CoPies / \ W k HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/iI025 \ \ ORDER ARBITRATION APPL.ICATION No.56 of 2025 ,t'.' " i //. //.\: D I '_ l; -- | a. 1 06 J-' '\,. .{ t ! 1 I 4 E b 6n1 4v -1'.. h l, -t-
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.