The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. M.V. Pratap Kumar Counsel for the ResPondent The Court made the following: I .4 I I I I I{ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.288 OF 2024 ORDER: (ORAL) -Ihis application is filed seeking to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the applicant and the respondent in terms of the contract agreement dated28.12.2022.

2. Order dated 22.11.2024 was passed directing the applicant to take out pelsonal notice to the respondent. When the matter was listed on

02.01.2025, order was passed by this Court directing the applicant to take out fiesh notice to the respondent to its correct address and file proof of service. On 27 .01.2025, leamed counsel for the applicant informed this Court that notices have been taken out to the respondent to its registered office at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and Branch Office at Hyderabad and both tl.re notices have been retumed with endorsement 'refused' and 'no such person in this address' respectively. This Court directed the applicant to serve notice on the leamed counsel appearing for the respondent in C.O.P. No.66 of 2024 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act 1996') on the file of the Judge, Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for I Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad (for short 2 'Commercial Court').

3. Learned counsel for the applicant filed Memo dated 13.02.2025 and submitted that notice was sent to Mr. B. Ravi Shankar, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent in C.O.P. No.66 of 2024 on the file of the Commercial Court. A copy of track consignment is also hled in proof of service of notice

4. Learned counsel for the applicant brought to the notice of this Court that due to inadvertence the name of the counsel was incorrectly mentioned as 'B. Ravi Kumar'. On perusal of the documents on record, it is clear that notice was sent to Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate. Thus, it is treated as deemed service of notice on the respondent.

5. It is stated that the applicant and the respondent entered into contract agreement dated 28.12.2022 wherein clause 4l provides for referring of disputes, if any, arisen between the parties. to a sole arbitrator. It is stated that the applicant is developing a project under the name and style of 'Manbhum - A Grove By The Lake'. In that connection, the applicant engaged the respondent who is a civil contractor for undertaking certain civil works. The respondent ,/. 3 committed default in performing the terms and .conditions of the agreement. The disputes were amicably settled and settlement agreement dated 04.03.2024 was entered into by both the parties for settlement of bills against the completion of certain works on the subj ect property. The respondent det'aulted on the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement and failed to complete the remaining works' Respondent addressed e-mail dated 02.05.2024 unilaterally amending the timelines for the completion of the works, which is in complete variance to the terms and conditions of the settlement Agreement. Having no other option, the applicant terminated the contract agreement and the settlement agreement by termination notice dated l'7.05.2024. The respondent issued reply letter dated 18.05.2024 making false and baseless allegations.

6. It is submitted that the applicant filed application under section'9 oftheActlgg6bearingC.o.P.No.66of2024beforetheCommercial Court and order dated 06.06.2024 was passed restraining the respondents from interfering with the construction activity of the petitioner and the i same is pending. It is stated that the notice was sent to the respondent to give its consent for nominating Mr. B- Satish Kumar, Advocate' R/o Kondapur as sole arbitrato::_ _ - -/ 4

7. As there is no contest from the respondent, this application is allowed appointing Mr. Kuthuru Ravinder Reddy, District Judge (Retired), Sai Sampada Plaza,, Flat No.202, 2nd floor, above Punjab National Bank, Metro Pillar No,967, Habsiguda main road, Hyderabad, as Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between the parties and to pass an award in accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to raise all factual and legal grounds in support of their respective claims.

8. The learned Arbitrator is entitled to fees as per the rates specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Act, 1996 inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015, No.3 of 2016, with effect from

23.10.2015, which shall be bome by both parties in equal shares. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this application stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sd/- M. VIJAYA BHA SKER JOINT..REGISTRAR I V CTION OFFICER To,

1. Mr. Kuthuru Ravinder Reddy, District Judge (Retired), Sai SamPada Plaza, Flat No. 202, 2nd Floor, above Punjab NationaI Bank, Metro Pillar No. 967, Habsiguda, M ain Road, HYderabad. (BY SPecia I Messenger) (Along with a copy of affidavit and material PaPers 2. Mls RTS INFRA, ReP resented by its Ma naging Partner, Mr. Talewan Yadav Having its corpo rate office at Plol No. 1, Shri Sai Estate , Near Carrier School, Janikipuram, Lucknow, U.P., and Having its branch office at No. 7 - 15, Prakash Nag ar, HafeezPet, rtsinfra.h Hyderabad, Telangana - 500049 o mail.com / I

3. One CC to Sri. M.V. Pratap Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies DL/ghw, / I I I J HIGH COURT DATED:13t021202s \ \ ORDER ARBAPP[.. No. 288 of 2024 1HE sra 14: o\ o o O7UAflM ?: o ,il \--;.-- ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION C*ekll X"@