Mr. Sriramoju Sambeshwar Rao v. IWs Modi ltealty Pocharam LLp, 'this Court passed the following
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Th,: aforesaid facts would reveal that there are disputes between the applicant and the respondent with regard to the execution of the said agreement -. cum GI)A, dated, 21,.12.2019. The same are arbitrable in nature. 8'ln the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present…
Judgment
M/s. Modi Realty Pocharam LLp, Regd. office at - 5-4-1gzt3 and 4, ll Floor, soham Mansion, MG Road, secunderabad- 500003. Rep. by its Managing Director- Mr. soham Modi, s/o. Late. Satish Modi, aged about 54 years. ...Respondent Arbitration Application filed Under Section 11 (6) the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying that in the circumstances stated in accompanying affidavit this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a. Appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the Applicant and Respondent under Ctause 56 of the Joint Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney Doc. No. 13206 of 2019, dt.21t1Zt2Tlg in exercise of powers under Section 1 1(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1g96. b. ln the alternative, the Hon'ble High court may be pleased to, appoint a nominee arbitrator on behalf of the Respondent as per Clause 56 of the Joint Development Agreement cum General Power of Aftorney Doc. No. 13206 of 201g, dt-2111212019 in exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Unnam Shravan Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Duvva pavan Kumar The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER ,/ //. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN ONA CATI N F 2025 Date:02-04-2026 Between: Mr. Sriramoju Sambeshwar Rao, And IWs Modi ltealty Pocharam LLp, 'this Court passed the following:- ...Applicant Respondent ORDER Heard Mr. tJnnam shravan Kumar, learned counsel for the Applicant zrnd Sri Duvva pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent
The present Arbitration Application is filed under Section I I (b) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter .the Acr, L996') seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispures between the parties.
Perusal of record would revear that the applicant and the respondent t:ntered into a Joint Development Agreement -cum - General 2 (7 Power of Attorney, dated 21.12.2019 on specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. clause-56 of the said agreement deals with the disputes and appointment of an arbitrator, which is relevant and extracted below:- "All the disputes or differences between the owner and the Developer arising out of, or in connection with, this understanding shall be decided through arbitration of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by the owner and the other to be appointed by the Developer and the two arbitrators appointing the third arbitrator. The venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be Hyderabad and the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Acl 1996, shall be applicable to such proceedings. Law courts in Hyderabad shall alone have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising out of, or in connection with this understanding to the exclusion of all other law courts".
According to the applicant, there are disputes between the applicant and respondent with regard to the execution of said Joint Development Agreement - cum - GpA, dated zl.I2.z0l9. There is exchange of notices between the applicant and the respondent with regard to the disputes and appointment of an arbitrator. Even then, the respondent did not come forward for appointment of an arbitrator in ..4,:-i+:,4, s:r.,#| ""i. 3 terms of the said agreement to adjudicate the disputes between them. Therefore, the applicant filed the present application for appointment of an arbitrator.
R,:spondent filed counter confirming the execution of the Joint Development Agreement dated, 21.12.2019 and also stated that it has no objection firr appointing sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between thr:m.
S.ri Duvva pavan Kumar, leamed counsel appearing for respondent rlonfirms the said fact.
Operative part
Th,: aforesaid facts would reveal that there are disputes between the applicant and the respondent with regard to the execution of the said agreement -. cum GI)A, dated, 21,.12.2019. The same are arbitrable in nature. 8'ln the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Arbitration Application is allowed. Accordingly, sri D. Ravindra sharma, Retired District and Sessions Judge, Mobile No.9g4g790929, H.No.l3-10_95, Flat No.20l, Vyshnavi Apartments, New Gaddiannaram, l I 4 Hyderabad, is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The parties are at liberty to take atl the available pleasanddefencesbeforethelearnedsoleArbitrator. Consequently, miscellaneousPetitions, pendingifany, in this Arbitration Application, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY" SD/. K.SHYLESHI JOINT REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER To,
Sri D. Ravindra Sharma, Retired District and Sessions Judge, Mobile No.[REDACTED], H.No.13-10-95, Flat No.201, vyshnavi Apartments, New Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad (By speciat Messenger) (Along with a copy of affidavit and material papers)
2. One CC to Sri Unnam Shravan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Duwa Pavan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL N r' ,? --l e l;" lntr g 15 APR Sl'l-:'l-:,1 HIGH COURT DATED: 02104t2026 I "t, I' 'o () t :a * ORDER ARBAPPL.No. 171 of 2025 ALLOWING THE ARBAPPL ,IL, \1 h
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(6).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 02 Apr 2026. The bench was K LAKSHMAN.
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.