The High Court · 2025

Represented by its Managing Director Sri. Chandrashekar Vege ...RESPONDENT Arbitration Application under section 1 1(6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996, praying that the Hon'bre court may be preased to appoint a sole Arbitrator under section 1 1(6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 as amended till date, for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the Parties under clause 67 of the Agreement of sate dated 26.07.2022. d lA NO: 1 OF 202!i Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunstances stated the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may. be pleased to _.in permit the petitiorrer file affidavit in Arb. Appl No. 298 of 2024 Counsel for the lretitioner: Sri Gandham Durga Bose Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER &*., ( THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VTJAYSEN REDDY ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.298 0F 2024 ORDER: (ORAL) This application is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short 'the Arbitration Act 1996') for appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arisen between applicant and respondent out of the Agreement of Sale (for shorl 'Agreement') dated 26-07 '2022' 2 Heard Mr. Durga Bose Gandham, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material on record'

3. Leamed counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant entered into Agreement dated 26'07 '2022 with respondent for purchasing Villa No.7 admeasuring 504'83 square yards at Goldfish Zresta Villas, Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal' Ranga Reddy District - 500075, for a sale consideration of Rs'5'39'84'000/- (Rupees five crores thirty nine lakhs and eighty four thousand)' The applicant made payment of total sale consideration to the respondent in instalments as per the Clause - 2 of the Agreement' However' the 2 respondent failed to execute sale deed in favour of the applicant. The applicant surprisingly received legal notice dated '.27.04.2024 from the respondent cancelling/terminating the Agreement dated

26.07.2022 by levelling baseless allegations against the applicant. Hence, the applicant was constrained to file fub.O.P. No.43 of 2024 under SectiorL 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 before the lea-rned Chief Judge, Cit1, Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short 'Trial (burt') and also prayed the Trial Court to restrain the respondent from acting upon the legra I notice dated 27 .04.2024. The Trial Court passed the order dated t).1.05.2024 in Arb.o.P. No.43 of 2024 directing the parties to majntain status quo and the order was extended lrom time to time

4. It is further submitted that applicant issued notice dated

03.06.2024 invoking arbitration as per the Clause - 67 of the Agreement dr*ed 26.07.2022 for referring the mattei to an arbitrator for resolvin,g the disputes between them, which was dull' served on the respondent on 06.06.2024. However, there was no response from them. Flence, the instant application. 3 It is submitted that pursuant to the order dated ll'12'2024 5, passed by this Court, notice was taken out to respondent' which was retumed with an endorsement 'Item Retumed Addressee Left without instructions'; the respondent is still runni.ng its office in the address shown in the cause title which is evident from the display board kept in front of "Vaishavi's Cynosure" situated at Gachibowli, Hyderabad' The respondent is running office in the seventh (7th; floor of the said complex and got retumed the notice by manipulation.

6. As directed by this Court by the order dated 24'02'2025' affidavit has been filed by the applicant stating that respondent is still running its business operations from the same address shown in the cause title. Hence, there is deemed service of notice on the respondent.

7. The applicant and respondent are parties to the Agreement dated26.07.2022 arrdtheclause - 67 therein provides for resolution of disputes arising between the applicant and respondent through arbitration. The applicant invoked arbitration clause by issuing t t I , ;4'' 4 notice datr:rl 03.06.2024. Thus, there is compliance c,f procedure under Section I 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

8. As there is no contest from the respondent, the arbitration application is allowed, appointing Sri Justice A. Rajash,:ker Reddy, Former Judge, High Court for the State of Telangana, ptot No.22A, Road No. 1 2. M.L.A. Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad _ 500033, as Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes betweerL the parties and to pass an award in accordance with law. The par.ties are at liberty to raise all factual and legal grounds in supprtft of their respective claims

9. The leamed Arbitrator is entitled to fees as per the rates specified in the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitrarion .,\ct 1996, inserted by Act 3 of 2016 with effect from23.l0.2Ol5..,r,hich shall be borne by both parties in equal shares. As tL sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the arbitration application stand closed 1 I I : i I i To, 1 //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S.S.C,S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR ))il;"n",r.=:+ Sri Justice,A. Rajasheker Reddy, former Judge, High Court fcr the State of Telangana, Plot No. 22A, Road No. 12, M.L.A. Colony, Elanjara Hills, Hyderabad-500033 [Along with the Copy of Affidavit, petition and material papers filed in Arb.A.No.2918 0f 20241 Coq -'\_*;j-;!F;'YIE TE:*r::-f!rit' - ...]X. ..*:rs9., ._... .r.r'.&,,,. .:ii! . ...-t*i,,t, .._-,,",;...ri.::--.. _....irr,-. . _ X&ffi1M -:';i1atr."€-x:,:t l:a

2. GOLDFISH ABODE PIIIVATE LIMITED, PIOI NO. 8-2-293 1821N732, PIOI732. A, sASt tCoN Buitding,. R_o9d ll; ao, lroirl" iiii., Hyderabad, Tetanqana rndia _ sooo33 Arso it. .tc, 7th it;;;-iril;;i cynosure, ord M;mbai Highway Gachibowti, HyOeraOaJ _ i-O-O m; t$; ^ Diiectoisri. Cnrn-Jrrsnekrvege esented by its Managing 3. One CC to Sri Gandham OurgiL;se, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/kam !- l 'l -: HIGH COURT DATED: 03tO3t2O2S I , ORDER ARBAPPL..No.298 of 2024 :,1ATE o,s ( I t) tB s\\ $ o it; "/- t , i Sa!' 1 '. ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLTCATION