The High Court · 2025

SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN ARB TRATtoNA PPL rcA TloNNO:2950F2 024 Between: 2 ,*,r--l*rolgr.:mr,*j::i'f; i,,#fi tl%t'*#i,,,!l[{ !t/s RAAM Etectric Two ft :.JT;;.,iii.t:Le"p,.:?ltii;I"3.ltJ,'A:l]I"if i'J1r,** ''-iooi.!i*t"'l colonv. Baniara nirr. nriin'"no'r-1, uomajiguda, Hyderabad AND ,..APPLICANTS 1 ) J 4 - ifl #i:lf:Tiliffl#?r,i#ff t:sn"3:E:i:::r;i,f ri,;ff Bobbili Mahalaxmi. Wo Bobbili. Keshav Raj Naidu. Aged about 65 years, R/o j'i''i'' d'i""J, fi l,uno," n,s, r.c irc,e, H,,Tlf J;llil #:t 3,"Ji?1''i"' Mrs. Yadla Deepali, D/O Mr B. Keshav Raj Naidu, Wo. Mr. yadla Venkata Ramana, Aged about 45 vears, Occuprtio"l Hor." Wfe R/o H.No.24_12gt 'nril'"orl"rnar 1, Naidus Cotony, Upperpalty vitrage,"Ci-N/c, circte, Ranga Reddy District - 500 048. feLngan"a Strt" pr".#fiResioing at H No.129, Himagiri Meadows, Gottioere. d_annersrtd n""d ilngalore - 560 083, -pr;N; "A?"""uurra. Karnataka. Aadhaar No obz ssra s:-81 Represented by her G.p.A.. Holder Mr Bobbili Keshav Rai Naidu.S/O B puli Raj Naidu. aged about 74 years, occupation. Retired, ito H r,ro z-+-Izaii, rU'ior EJrtly, upperpalry, GHMC, Rajendranagar Circle. Ranga Reddy District _ S6O O+A,'f"f"ngana State. Aadhaar No 8580 SZtS SSiO. pan No nOHpNAgSOn]' Vide Registered G.p.A., bearing Document No. 17rrwzo22, Dt. z2t12t2o2z, Registered at S R O , Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. Mrs. B. Rupali Naidu, D/O. Mr. B. keshav na; rrfaiOrl, nged about43 years, Occupation. private Service, R/ o. H.No.2_4_iZA I I 'Na]Or,s Village, GHtMC, Rajendranagadircte, Ranla neOdy District _500 ^UggelOatty 048, Terangana state. Aadhaar No.777i 1734 9433 p"'n No. BSOPN6497H. Colony,, Presently Residin! .at,19114' 'Hr,(*'ffi 'I4 DRIVE SOUTH EAST BOTHELI.' ;.,",;*ii6,q'**lf;-t,ruil''i+i*' qilr'lU# u::::::"^:) utli"",utif o1,,,,,,,022 v a,idated bv A0HPN8930A ,o File No.226221 El2O22, D i'S:lltlXli'i'il'dh'Jiv6ii,i"t RES,.NDENTS """",,tri"li{i!,$i6f :,if'l%I?lti:s+?tji:"',}:?'::,j,,*ti.if}tiH d" ilHlll:i:l{ :trr I :;[rr: i: ffi$fi :#ili: * ffi '[iH,: :;;;;' 2Od IJu r urav'- "'-'- Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s' BANDARU HIMA VARSHINI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E' VENKATA SIDDHARTHA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN ARBI TRATION APPLICATIO N No.295 oF 2024 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri E. Venkata Siddharth, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Applicants and respondents have entered into two registered lease deeds bearing document Nos. 13O74 of 2022 and 10375 of 2022, both dated 22.12.2022, on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein, for the purpose of running a car show room. Applicants are specihcally contending that they have paid an amount of Rs.5,64,42,410/- towards security deposit to respondents and for interior work, civil work etc. However, details of the same are specifically mentioned in paragraph 11 of the accompanying affidavit of the present application. The aforesaid amount includes the amount of Rs.5o,oo,o00/- towards security deposit. It is also the 2 K. r\A 295 202 - specific (lorltcntion of the applicants ht:r:ein that responderLts put the applicants in possessiorr of the subject prop6:rty. The applicants invested hug€r i'lmounts toward s inte t ior works etc. , and announ(led t.o start its operations liom 15.O3.2023. Thereafter, on:: Dharma Reddy alonp u'ith 40 to 50 people came to the' subject properLy ancl asked the applicants to harLdover the subjcct protrx)rty. Therefore, 1"t respondent and another have filed a s;uit in O.S.No.86O of 2023 againrst the said Dharma Rerlly and others for perpetual injunc:ion and I.A.No.63ll cf 2023 for grant of ad interirn ir-rjurrction in respect rll thc subject property. Thereupon. uiLTe order dated 04.12.2023, Iearned XII Additiona.l Dlstrict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, granted status c1uto. Due to the said rl'Lsputes, the applicants are not in a position to run the saicl car show room. Thus, thcre are disputes between the applicants and respondents with. regard to the terms; arrd conditions of the aforesaid lease deeds, both clatecl 27.12.2022. Therefore, invok:ng the 3 KL,J AA_295 2024 arbitration clause mentioned tn the said lease deeds, applicants got issued a legal notice dated O9.Og _2023 Lo respondents. Respondents have issued a reply dated 27.12.2023 stating that there are no arbitrable disputes. Thereafter, applicants got issued a Iegal notice dated 30.05.2024, but, respondents did not respond to the same. Therefore, the applicants have filed the present application to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the applicants and the respondents.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 filed counter contending that there are no arbitrable disputes between them and that when 40 to 50 people along with the aforesaid Dharma Reddy trespassed into the subject property on 15.O3.2023, applicants should have informed the same to the respondent authorities. The applicants have not lodged any complaint against the said Dharma Reddy and others. Therefore, the applicants cannot now inform them that they were dispossessed from the subject property- --..- K, AA 295-202\ It'arned 4 Sri E. Venkata Siddhartha,

4. Howevcr' counsel aPlleeLring for the resPondents fatrlY admitt.ed of the l'iubject that the resPlndenls are in Possesslon proPerty

5. During 1he course of hearing' Sri' tr' \/enkata Siddhartha, ltrarned counsel appearing for: respc'ndents' on instructions, would submit that on the r:c'mplaint lodged by the respondents' Rajendranagar P'rlice have registered twc' crimes i'e'' Crime Nos'352 & 1099 ol 2023 against the siilid Dharma Reddy and others' In'v'estigation is pending. 'Ihe said suit is also pending He would further subnrit that respondents have purcl-rased the subject proi)erty from the said Dharma Redcty's father' Thereafter, I)harma Reddy and others have filed rl suit for partition and separate possession, in respect rlf the suit schedule p1 opcrty and the sarne was clismiss':d' They have not preferred any appeal. KL,J AA 295 2024 5

6. The afore-stated facts would reveal that there are disputes between the applicants arrd the respondents with regard to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid two registered lease deeds, both dated 27.12.2022. The same are arbitrable in nature.

7. Sri E.Venkata Siddhratha, learned counsel appearing for respondents by placing reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation limited v. NCC Limitedl would submit that there are no disputes between the applicants and respondents. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted bclow: " In Nortel Networks2, this Court.had an occasion to consider the decision in Vidya Drolia3 and in paras 46,47 and 53.2, it is observed and held as under: 46J The upshot of the judgment in Vidya Drolia is afhrmation of the position of law expounded in Duro Felgueraa and Mayavati Tradings q71-ri"1, continue to hold the field. It must be uriderstood clearly that Vidya Drolia has not resurrectd the (2023) 2 supreme Court cases 5:19 (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) j52 (202 I) I SCC (Civ) s49 (20 I 7)4 SCC(Civ)764 (20 l9)4SCC(Civ)44l K, ^ ^ )qs ,n). 6 pre-amcn(lment position on the scope of pov/er as Leld in SEil)&Co. v. Patel trngg.Ltd6 47 . lt is onlY in the very limited categ,oty c f cases, r,r'here there is not even a vestlg( of aor,rltt t trat the claim is ex facie time-barred, or' that th.e <L spute is non-arbitrable, that the courl may clecl ne to make the reference Howe"'er' i- therc, rs t:r'en the slightest doubt, the rule is to refer 1,he dispr:tes to arbitration, otherwise i' woulcl enr:r'oach upon what is essentially a rnaLte' to be determined bY the tribunal' 5.3.2. Ir-r r-are and exceptional cases, where [hr: claims ar,: ex focie time-barred, and it is meLnifest that ther( is no subsisting dispute, the Cout't mart refuse to lake the reference."

8. Even in the afore-cited Judgment, thr: Apex Court placed relianc( on the Judgments in Nortel Networks and Vidya Drolia (supra). In the said case, the claim is ex lacie ttm,:-barred and dispute is non-arbitrable' Therefore, thr: lacts in the said case are a'ltogether different to tht: facts of the present case' g. As riiscrrssed supra, in the preseot cas;e, the applicants ha'"e obtained the subject property o::1 lease under the: rlforcsaid two registered lease deeds' The said Dharma Redrl'y and others dispossessed the petitioner from the subject property. Respondents have hled the u (zoosls sct: r s 7 KI-,J AA_295 2024 aforesaid said suit vide O.S.No .86 of 2023 agarnst the said Dharma Reddy and others for perpetua_l injunction and the learned tria_l Court granted status quo. The said ls Pending and the said status quo order is subsisting. Thus, the said Dharma Reddy dispossessed the petitioner from the subject property. It is the specific contention of the respondents that they are in possession of the subject property. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that there are disputes between the applicants and respondents and the same are arbitrable tn nature.

10. It is apt to note that this Court being referral Court has a very limited role. This Court has to see existence of agreement and arbitration clause. In the present case, the aforesaid two registered lease deeds are entered into by and between the applicants and respondents. Clause 15 of the aforesaid lease deeds is extracted below. "Dispute Resolution: a) All disputes arising in connection with this Deed shall be resolved through arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as Kr- NA.29s)02" 8 - -r ^r rr^rn time to [ime ' and the v( nue of 'Tl;::l::., '""n"i' o.'* Hvdurabad' ln9i' ' . -,^'' li';T: ";:, ;:3 "";",1' ; ;; :; : ;,1{m"' liii,. i',; " L' -::-1ffi*tnf ;a,lf ili]'iil i I l: [l.'o'i1,,.: the as arC l[ the arbltrat uporL the Partles' "

11. In the ligLrt of the above' this Arbitration Applicatton 1S allowecl an rl Mrs K. Sailaja, Retired Distrir:t Judge' Hunsvilla APartments;' Mctl.uguda' R/o Flat Nc' 102' Secunderaba'1, HYderabad - 5OO 017, is aPPointe'1 as an adjudicate the disputes betr'rreen the arbitrator t<r applicants and the resPondents- /,TRUE COPY'/ SD/. M. VIJAYA BHASKER -.., {olNT REGISTRAR $ec;ttott oFFlcER To,

1. Mrs. K. Sa laja, Retired District Judge' R/o'. Flat Nr.r"102' nderabad '- Hyderabad-50{)0'7 (By affidavit and material papers) "t ilLlJ"'iiii;l 'ir."ri*l,r', ' *pv Aoartments, lvtettug uO a ""Secu 2 OneCC to M,s. Bandaru Hima Varshini' Advocate^[OPUC] 5 O;; CC to Sri E Venkata Srddhartha' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Plp/gh Hunsvilla Special HIGH COURT DATED:2310411t-025 ORDER .: '- - :- ; i)r-: . 1\,: .(o( +: .;-) (J It6 t{\1 M z ARBAPPL.No,295 of 2024 t .. , .,.|] ALLOWING TI.IE ARBITRATION APPLICATIONI Gro'P ?"4w i{4-t