Millennium Educotion Fountlation v. Educontp Infraslructure and School Management Limitertt). Howeve r, a perusal of

5. Mr Hitesh Kumar, S/o Mr. Vishnu Dayal, aged about 37 years, R:,/o 21-1-516, Opp. High Court, Hyderabad - 500 002 6 \4-rs Stilpa Agarwal, Wo Sachin Agarwal, aged about 39 years, R/o 8-2- 6841312, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034

7. Mr Shashi Kant Aganval, S/o Mr. Chandrakant Aganval, aged about 46 years, R/o 8-2-6841211, Road No. 12,Banjara Hills, Hyderabad:500 034 8. Mr Rishi Kant Agarwal, S/o Mr. Chandrakant Aganival, aged about 46 years, Rlo 8-2-6841211, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034 ...APPLICANTS AND

1. 2 T. M. Tyres Limited, Having its registered office at 1-8-303/48/5 and 8,4th Floor, KPR House, SP Road, Secunderabad - 500 003, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Ashok Kumar Agarwal. Mr. Ashok Kulq1{ga1ryal, S/o Late ShareeMukhram Agarwal, Aged about 59 ygqr9, R/o 1-8-33711, Fore Front Royal Apartment, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 003.

3. Mrs. Sunita Kumari Agarwal, W/o Mr. Ashok Kumar Aganval, Occ. Business, Rlo 1-8-337 11 , Fore Front Royal Apartment, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 003. 4. Mr. Satish Kumar, S/o Sri Khalanchilal Agarwal, Aged about 51 years, R/o 8- 4-3151111A, Erragadda, New Prem Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 018.' ...RESPONOENTS ----7 Arbitration Application Under Section i 1(5) and (6) of Conciliation Act, 1g96 R/w Scheme for appointment of Arbitrator, that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased: Arbitration & 1996 praying i) ii) To appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between the Applicant and Respondent; To award the costs of application. Counsel for the Applicants: Sri M.V. pratap Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri pranay Sohini The Court made the following: ORDER TtTtr] IJON'BLE SRI JUSTICE'I" VINOD KUMAR ARBITRATION APPLICATI ON No. 49 ot 2020 ORDE.I{: I 1'he present Arbitration Application is fi led under Section I 1(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Acr, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act, 1996') lor appoinrment of a sole ar.bitrator to resolve the disputes between the parlies.

2. Ileard Mr. M.V. Pratap Kumar., Iearncci counsel for the applicants, and Mr. Pranay Sohini, learned counsel for the Respondents. Perused the Record.

3. The applicant and thc respondenls hercin entered into an Agreement of Sale curn Gencral Powcr o I Attome y (With Possession) on 24.06.2019 fbr sale of' Iand adnicasur.ing Ac.

17.3 1.5 Gts situatcd at Sy. No. 305-8,305-lrE,32t-A and 321-AA of Kalakal Village, Manoharabad Mandal (erstrvhile Toopran Manda,l), Medak District, Telangana lor a rotal sale consideration of Rs.20,57,5 1,030/- (Rupees fwcnty Crorcs, I;iliy Seven Lakhs, Fifty One'fhousand and Thirty Rupees only). 2 4 The Applicants contend that though they had lulfitled thcir obligaticns under the AGPA dated 24.06.2019, Rcspondents hercin had failed to clear pending substantial dues to tlie Conrnrer.cial Taxes I)epartment and other Govelnmental Departutcnrs. duc to which the Strb-Rcgistrar had declined to register. the AGPA dated

24.06.2019 till the land was cleared from blockaqe by concer-ncd Department

5. The applicants further subrrit that disputes arose betrvcen the parties as t[-rc Respondents herein failed to clear the outstanc]inrr dues despite their repeated promises. Thus, the Applicants hed issued the notice dated 08.06.2020 invoking ttre {rbitr.arion Agreement contained in Clause 20 of the AGPA dated 14.0(r.20 19. appointing Mr. D. Narendra Naik, advocate as s(.)le ar.bitrator. to resolve disputes between the parties.

6. It is contended that the present arbitration application is filcd seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator as LIic Rcspondcnts through their reply notice dated 25.06.2020 rejecLed rhc naure ol the proposed arbitrator

7. Per contra, Iearned counsel for the respondents herein contends that the applicants herein had also filed CP(IB) No. 342l95lllDBl2020 under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (fbr short 'IBC') seeking initiation of insolvency resolution proceedings against the respondents herein; that the NCLT while appointing a Resolution Prolessional on

19.01.2023 had also declared an interim moratorium in terms of Section 96 of IBC; and the present arbitration application cannot be proceeded with during the existence of the Interim Moratorium dared 19.02.2023

8. ln reply, learned counsel for the Applicants had flled Memo dated. 28.12.2023 vide U.S.R. No. 127800 ol 2023, along with email communications with the applicants, to submit that steps will be initiated to withdraw the company application filed befbre the NCLT

9. I have taken ngte of their respective contentions

10. It is trite law that once an interim moratoriuln is declared in tenns of Section 96 of the IBC, the same shall apply as a stay against any legal action or pending proceedings, thus indicating 4 that the present proceedings ought to have been rightfuily stayed frorn the date of declaration of interim moratorirrm on 19.01.2023 (See: Millennium Educotion Fountlation Vs. Educontp Infraslructure and School Management Limitertt). Howeve r, a perusal of the record indicates that the applicants herein not only chose to ren.rain silent about the filing of the cornpany application before the NCLI', but have also suppressed the fact ol'the interirn moratorium being dcclared by the NCLT from thjs Cor-rrt. Rather, it is the Respondents herein who had brought the said l.act to the notice ol this Court. I l. That apart, though it was sought to be contended that applicants arc initiating steps to withdraw the cornprrnl.application, it is to be seen that no order of the NCLT is placed before this Court to the effect that the applicants have indeed withdraw,n tl.re company application. Therefore, since the Applicants hereirr have elected to initiate Insolvency proceedings against trre Respondents herein for the very same debt/dispute despite the pendency of the ' rvtat'lu/or/rcaz/2022 : 2022:OHC:L872. On rhe matter being carri:d n an sLp, rhe Hon,bre Supreme Court had affirmed the views expressed by the Delhi tigh Court in SLp(C).No. 71403 / 2021 d atcd 1s.o7.2022 : MANU/SCOR/65633/2022. 5 present arbitration proceedings, where the NCLT had appoinrcd a Resolution Professional, this Court is of the view that it is a matter of propriety for the Applicants to pursue their remedy in the company application.

12. I'hat apart, when the conduct of the applicants herein in concealing that parallel proceedings were being pursucd befbre multiple forums, is seen in light of their conduct in conccaling that a Rcsolution Professional was appointed by the NCt-T u,hile declaring an interim moratorium, it is clear that the applicants herein intend to browbeat and take liberties with the procedures of the Courl in order to achieve their ends. It is trite law that a litigant who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief interim or final (Dalip Singh Vs. State of tt.P. tnd Ori).'lhus, for the said reason as well this Court is r.rot inclined to entertain the present application.

13. In light of the foregoing discussion the present arbitration application is dismissed. 'lzorolzsccrr+ 6 .- \ \r -- - .r Pending rniscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR .tI SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To,

1. Mr. D. Narendra Naik, Advocate, #20'l , Nirmitee's Landmark, MA Colony, Road No. 12, Banjarahills, Hyderabad-500034, Ph.No. 9849387366, Emait: narender. naik@varu nlaw. com

2. One CC to Sri M.V Pratap Kt.rmar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Pranay Sohini, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VTYPSL ry/ - t'.. , 0 3 StP 2025 \. -a(,. '.t'i.\ HIGH COURT DATED: 2810712025 ORDER ARBAPPL.No.49 of 2020 DISMISSING THE APPEAL 1 \.) (