Mrs. Padakanti sunitha v. '1 . M.s OmSai Vijetha Builders

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Sri G' Shashidhar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER I l l l I I I I : i 're a TIIE I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHN,IAN ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.263 of 2024 ORDER: Hcard Sri K. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, iearned c()unscl li)r applicant and Sri G. Shashidhar Reddy, lcarnecl ccunscl appearing for rcspondcnts

2. This application IS filed Lrnder Section i l((r) ol lhc Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (tbr shorl 'thc Act'), to appoint sole arbitrator for the pulpose of ad-iudication of disputes between the applicant and respondents

3. According to the applicant, hcrsell'aud responclenL No.2 have entcrcd into partnerstrip deed dated 02.12.2009 on specific tenns and conditions mentioned thercin in lhe nante and style of respondent No.l, NI/s. Om Sai Vi.jetha Builclels, lbr doing real estate business. Both the applicant and respondent No.2 are Managing Partners of respondent No.l frrm. Respor-rdent No.2 is not settiing the acccunts Thus. thcre \ r .:",t1.: - \a: . \ 2 KL, J Arb Appl No.263 ol202a are disputes between the applicant and respondent No.2 with regard to the constitution of respondent No.l firm. The same are arbitrable disputes. Therefore, invoking arbitration clause in the partnership dced dated 02.12.2009, she got issued a legal notice dated 13.07.2024 to the respondents with a request to settle the disputes relating to the constitution of respondent No. I firm and its business activities, or else, she will initiate proceedings under Section I l(6) of the Act. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said notice, rcspondents did not respond to it. Therefore, she has tilcd the present Arbitration Application.

4. Whereas, respondents flled counter contending that the present Arbitration Application is barred by timitation. According to them, the applicant got issued a legal notice dated 15.07.2013 to the respondents and others proposing Sri Justice V. Bhasker Rao as sole arbitrator. The rcspondents have already got issued reply to thc said legal notice on 21 .01 .2013. Therealier, the applicant has got issued one more notice on 05.09.20t3 and the respondents have got issued -a#=i--*=- l-^.: /' - ,/ 3 KL,.] Ar l) APP| No 263 ot 2021 rejoinder to the said notice also on 23.09.20t3. Shc has waited for 11 long years and got issuecl a legal notice dated

13.()7.2024 to the respondents. The salne was sent to thc old address ol 2''d lespondent. Therefore, the said notice was not served on h in-r

5. It is lurther contended by thcm that resltondent No.[ flrrrr has eutered into fbur-agreements of sale with r.egarcl to certain properties in fhvour o1' third parties ancl the), havc fl lcd Consumer Complaints, C.C.Nos.128, 129 and lj0 of 20t-5. befbre the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Cornrnission, Hyderabad, under Section l7(l )(aXi) ol- the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. Vitlc conrnon order clated

01.05.2023, the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission partly allowed the above saicl Consurner Complaints. Against the said common order, thc applicant herein prel'erred appeals before the National Consunrcr Disputes Rcdressal Commission and the sanle arc pending. She has also filed a suit in O.S.No.2729 of 2019 against the respondents to declare the agreements of sale dated 4 KI-, J Arb.Appl No 2r):l o1 2024

19.05.201l; 19.03.2011 & 25.06.201I as void and uncnforceable and also for perpetual injunction, and the said suit is posted for trial.

6. Learned counscl for the respondents, on instructions, would subrnit that the agreernents oI salc holdcrs havc deposited the balance sale consideration as pcr the afirresaid cornrnon order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the Tclangana State Consurner Disputes l{edressal Commission in the albresaid Consumer Complaints and to get over ti'o m the said ol'der passed by the State Cornmission, the applicant got issued a legal notice dated 13.07.2024 to the respondents. Therefore, the sarne is barred by limitation.

7. As discussed supra, thc applicant and the respondents entcred into a parlnership deed datcd 02.12.2009 on the spccifrc terms and conditions to do rcal estate business. l " respondent has entered into lbur (4) agreements of sale with third parlies. It has received thc advance sale consideration. It failed to receive the balance sale considcration and cornplete .-- ;,E6Ell't*-:.*-rz ----,.' 5 l(l-' J .1r l, \ppl No 2i)3 ,,i 2024 its obligation under the albresaid Agreernents of Sale Therefore, the vendors have tlled the atbresaicl Consurner Complaints in telrns of Section l7(l)(aXi) of thc Consunrer. Protection Act, 1986. J.he same were allowed in part 8 According to the leamed counsel lbr thc r.espondcnts, agrcements of sale holders have already depositecl the balance salc cclnsidcr-ation belbre thc State Commissiorr in the said disputes.

9. It is also not in dispute that 2',d respondent has filed a petition virlt, A.O.P.No.l826 of 2012 under Section 9 of the Act. in the (lourt ol-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil CoLu1. Hyilcrabad. -['he same was disrnissed. It is also not in clisltute that the applicant has filed a suit in O.S.No.2729 of 20 19 against 2nd rcspondent before the learned XIX Junior Civil .ludge, City ('ivil Courts, Hyderabad, and the sanrc is pcnding. It is posted firr trial. l'hus. the cause of action is cor.rtiru<lus. The albresaitl lacts and cir.-urnstances would re'ear that thcr.e is no delay on the part of the applicant in invokir.rg the 6 IiL,.J A, b.Appl.No.263 o( 202 I t\ jurisdiction of this Couft by filing the present Arbitration Application under Section ll(6) of the Act. Therefore, the present Arbitration Application ls hopelessly bar-red by lirnitation

10. At the cost of repetition, as stated supra, the applicant filed a suit O.S.No.2729 of 2019 against respondent No.2 to declare the agrecrnent of sale dated 19.05.201l; 19.03.201t A

25.06.201I as void and fbr perpetual injunction A.O.P.No.l826 of 2012 filed by respondent No.2 under Section 9 of the Act was disrnissed. Theretbre, this Court cannot dismiss the present Arbitration Apptication on the ground that it is barred by limitation I l. In NTPC Limited v. SPML Infra Limited,r thc Apex Court clarified that while the lirnitation for filing application under Section I I of the Act is three (3) years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, tl.re issue wherher the underlying claims are time bamed is for the arbitral l'ribunal to ' (2021) 2 scc 385 {t 7 KL, J A.b Appl No.263 o1202-1 decide. Paragraph 25 of the said judgment is relevant and the same reads as under: "15 Eye ol thc Needls: 'I'hc above-referred prccedents cr\slallize thc positio[ of law that the pte-rcferral jurrsdiction ol Lhe couLls under Section 11(6) of rhc Act rs ver-v nanow aud inhcres l'uvo tnquiries. The primary rnquiry is about rhe existence and the validity of -an arbitration agrcernent, which also includes an inquiry as to the Pafties to thc agrcement and the appltcant's privity to the said agrccurent. 'l hese are matters which requirc a tllorough exaLnination by the refcnal court. The sccottdary inquiry tllrt uray alise at thc rettrctlce stage itself is u'ith respect 1(l thc ron- arbilrability of thc dispute."

12. Admittedty, in the present case, there are disputes between the applicant and the respondents and the same are arbitrable in uature 13 In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that there are disputes between the parlies and the same arc arbitrable disputes. Clause l7 of the Deed of Parlnership deals I , with arbitration clause and the same is extracted below. I , "lf any dispute or difference arises between thc partners with regard to the constitution or interprctation of these presents the matter shall be lrb.Appl No.263 oa2O2a ref'crred to the sole arbttrator and thc award of suoh arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the partners-"

14. In the present case, according to the applicant, there are disputes between the applicant and the respondents with regard to the constitution of respondent No. I llrm an<i accounts etc., and the same are arbitrable in nature.

15. In the light of the above, this Arbitration Application is allowed and Sri G. Anil Kiran Kumar, lormcr District Judge, is appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes beLween the applicant and the respondents. Liber-ty is granted to both the applicant and the respondents to raise all the contentions before the learned Arbitrator and it is for the Arbitrator to consider the sarne. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M VIJAYA BHASKER OINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER s '1. Sri G. Anil Kiran Kumar, Former District Judge, H. No.1-3'1 , Adarsh Nagar Colony, Bandlaguda Jageer Village, GandiPet Mandal, Ranga ReddY, Telan ana-500086 (BY Special Messenge r ) ( along with a GoPY of affidivit and material PaPers On e CC to Sri K. VijaYa Bhaskar ReddY, Advocate [oPUc] One CC to Sri G. S ashidhar Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD CoPies Z. ) 3 4. DUgh HIGH COURT DATED:23/06/2025 ORDER ARBAPPL.No.263 of 2024 1HE S14 n 2 Al.lq 2025 .)-' () (-) t .t * '{ o ..rrr .k:4 //'2' ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION