The High Court · 2025

It//s G K.C Prgjects Ltd , I_ep. by its General Manager (Finance), Mr. V. VinodJ(umar, Registered Office at Sy. No 9 (P), CII -Green Buildiiig Lane, Hitec City, Kondapur, Hyderabad. Telangana, lndia, 500084. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 ,..RESPONDENT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pending disposal of the above appeal, this Court may be pleased to parfly suspend the operation of order and decree dated 2110212025 to the extent of direction imposed on the Appellant to pay the arrears of the rent, maintenance etc. passed in C.O.P. No 35 of 2024 by the Principal Special Court ln the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri MD. Nawaz Hyder Ali, representing Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT rys' '// i I i I I I Iil1lltilll t] TIIE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON,BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR COMCA No.2t oR 2025 MI'N,lDNatv.tzl{ydcrAli,IearnedCounselrcpresentingMl'AluvaRaghuram Mahadev, learncd CoLrnsel .lppearing [or the appcllant' Mr.l( Venkatcsh GLrpta, lcarncd Counscl appearing for the respondenl' JUDGMENT: (Pcr Hon'blc Justicc Moushumi Bhattacharya) We have heard learned counsel appearing for lhe appellant as vvcll as learned counsel for the respondent on thc last occasion i-c., yestcrday on 05 08'2025' 2. The facts of lhe case leading to the impugned judgment dated'2l.o2.2o2lcarerecordedintheproceedingsheetdated

05.08.2025. 3. The appellant seeks setting aside the impugned orcier on the ground that the appellant's application under Section 9 of TheArbitraiior-randConciliationAct,1996(the1996Act)for restraining lhe respondent from interfering with the petition schedule properly of rhe appellant, was partly allou'ed by the Iearned Commerctal Court. Horvever, the Iearned Commercial Court directed the 4. appellant lo clear the arrears of rents' maintenance and electricity charges till the date of the order in respect of the petition schedule property of the appellant The appellant was directed to make payment towarcis arrears of rents etc, within 2 MB,J & GPK,J COMCA No.2l OF 2O2S four (O4) weeks from the date of the order i.e., within

20.o3.2025.

5. It is the admitted case of the appellant that the appellant did not comply with the impugned order to the extent of clearing the arrears of payment and instead filed the presenL COMCA No.21 of 2025 on 24.O4.2025 i.e., beyond the rime stipulated by the learned Commercial Court for compliance.

6. It is also admitted that the Arbitral Tribunal has not been consli[utcd till date. This is relevant since the appellant rvas given liberty to make an appropriate application before Arbitrator for interim measures. It shouid also be noted that the respondent was restrained from interfering with the petition scheclule property of the appellant ti1l the constitution of the ArbiLral Tribunal.

7. Although learned counsel appearing for thc appellant submits that the appellant has filed a contempt petrtron against the respondent for non-compliance of the impugned order, we do not find any such contempt petition on record. Learncd counsel appearing for the respondent has also disputed the fact of any contempt petition being filed by the appellant.

8. Section 9 (2) of the 1996 Act mandates constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal within 9O days from any interim order passed under Section 9 (1) of the said Act. Hence, the Arbitral Tribunal should have been constituted by 2O.OS.2O2S -,,/- I I l I I i I t I i 1i .ffip::5a197 l'. I 3 MB,J 6. GPK,J COMCA No.2l OF 2025

9. Counsel zrppearing for the appellant rnforms the Court that the appellant had sent a notice dated 13.06.2024 to the respondent under Section 21 of the 1996 Act, but that the respondent Iailed to reply to his notice. The_ Court is also informed that the appellant has taken steps to file an application under Section 1 1 (6) of the 1996 Act, but that the application rvas rcturned by thc Registry with objections on

26.O4.2025

10. Since the disputes betrneen the parties have not been resolved till ciate, and the appellanL has admittedly not complied with the relcvant part of the impugned order, we deem it fit to appoint an Arbitrator to enable the parties to carry their disputes to Arbitration. Needless to say, the appeilant shall be at libert]. to file an appropriatc .rpplication for interirn relicf belore the learned Arbrtrator. 1 l. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute except that the appellant has defaulted on obligation to comply n'ith the relevant part of the impugned order. Hon'ble Sri Justice Reddy Kantha Rao, retired Judge of this Court is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. Learned counsel appearrng for boch the parties have agreed 1o the choice of the Arbitrator. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be fixed by lhe 1:arties. // 4 MB,J & GPK,J COMCA.No.2l OF2025

12. COMCA No.21 of 2O2S is disposed of in rerms of the above. All connected applications, if any, sha1l stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SAILESHI OINT REGISTRAR '- ECTION OFFICER ,/ To,

1. Sri Justice Reddy Kahtha Rao, retired Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Flat No. B 204, B-Block, ELITE-LX, Veterinary Colony, Gunadala, Viiayawada-520008 Ph. No. 9440901 082, Email: [email protected] -fha 2. bThe Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and frud+e, Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad. 3- One CC to Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VH/ghw \] 18 SEP 2I[5 (' 'Y i * gC Sf )4 r Ct{ HIGH COURT DATED: 06/08/2025 JUDGMENT COMCA.N o.21 of 2025 DISPOSING OF COMCA 1 "@X*