M/S. Raam 4 Wheelers Llp vs Bobbili Keshav Raj Naidu
2025 Latest Caselaw 5018 Tel

Telangana High Court

M/S. Raam 4 Wheelers Llp vs Bobbili Keshav Raj Naidu on 23 April, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

      ARBITRATION APPLICATION 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.13074 of

2022 and 10375 of 2022, both dated 27.12.2022, on the

specific terms and conditions mentioned therein, for the

purpose of running a car show room. Applicants are

specifically 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.50,00,000/- towards security deposit. It is also the KL,J AA_295_2024

specific contention of the applicants herein that

respondents put the applicants in possession of the

subject property. The applicants invested huge amounts

towards interior works etc., and announced to start its

operations from 15.03.2023. Thereafter, one Dharma

Reddy along with 40 to 50 people came to the subject

property and asked the applicants to handover the

subject property. Therefore, 1st respondent and another

have filed a suit in O.S.No.860 of 2023 against the said

Dharma Reddy and others for perpetual injunction and

I.A.No.633 of 2023 for grant of ad interim injunction in

respect of the subject property. Thereupon, vide order

dated 04.12.2023, learned XII Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, granted status quo. Due

to the said disputes, the applicants are not in a position

to run the said car show room. Thus, there are disputes

between the applicants and respondents with regard to

the terms and conditions of the aforesaid lease deeds,

both dated 27.12.2022. Therefore, invoking the KL,J AA_295_2024

arbitration clause mentioned in the said lease deeds,

applicants got issued a legal notice dated 09.08.2023 to

respondents. Respondents have issued a reply dated

27.12.2023 stating that there are no arbitrable disputes.

Thereafter, applicants got issued a legal 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

15.03.2023, 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.

KL,J AA_295_2024

4. However, Sri E. Venkata Siddhartha, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents fairly admitted

that the respondents are in possession of the subject

property.

5. During the course of hearing, Sri E. Venkata

Siddhartha, learned counsel appearing for respondents,

on instructions, would submit that on the complaint

lodged by the respondents, Rajendranagar Police have

registered two crimes i.e., Crime Nos.352 & 1099 of 2023

against the said Dharma Reddy and others. Investigation

is pending. The said suit is also pending. He would

further submit that respondents have purchased the

subject property from the said Dharma Reddy's father.

Thereafter, Dharma Reddy and others have filed a suit for

partition and separate possession, in respect of the suit

schedule property and the same was dismissed. They

have not preferred any appeal.

KL,J AA_295_2024

6. The afore-stated facts would reveal that there are

disputes between the applicants and 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 Limited 1 would submit that

there are no disputes between the applicants and

respondents. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is

extracted below:

" In Nortel Networks 2, this Court had an occasion to consider the decision in Vidya Drolia 3 and in paras 46,47 and 53.2, it is observed and held as under:

46) The upshot of the judgment in Vidya Drolia is affirmation of the position of law expounded in Duro Felguera 4 and Mayavati Trading 5 which continue to hold the field. It must be understood clearly that Vidya Drolia has not resurrectd the

(2023) 2 supreme Court cases 539

(2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 352

(2021)1SCC (Civ) 549

(2017)4SCC(Civ)764

(2019)4SCC(Civ)441 KL,J AA_295_2024

pre-amendment position on the scope of power as held in SBP&Co.v.Patel Engg.Ltd 6

47. It is only in the very limited category of cases, where there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is ex facie time-barred, or that the dispute is non-arbitrable, that the court may decline to make the reference. However, if there is even the slightest doubt, the rule is to refer the disputes to arbitration, otherwise it would encroach upon what is essentially a matter to be determined by the tribunal.

5.3.2. In rare and exceptional cases, where the claims are ex facie time-barred, and it is manifest that there is no subsisting dispute, the Court may refuse to make the reference."

8. Even in the afore-cited Judgment, the Apex Court

placed reliance on the Judgments in Nortel Networks

and Vidya Drolia (supra). In the said case, the claim is

ex facie time-barred and dispute is non-arbitrable.

Therefore, the facts in the said case are altogether

different to the facts of the present case.

9. As discussed supra, in the present case, the

applicants have obtained the subject property on lease

under the aforesaid two registered lease deeds. The said

Dharma Reddy and others dispossessed the petitioner

from the subject property. Respondents have filed the

(2005)8 SCC 618 KL,J AA_295_2024

aforesaid said suit vide O.S.No.86 of 2023 against the

said Dharma Reddy and others for perpetual injunction

and the learned trial Court granted status quo. The said

suit is 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

in 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 KL,J AA_295_2024

amended from time to time, and the venue of arbitration shall be at Hyderabad, India.

b) The parties shall appoint a single arbitrator by mutual consent and the arbitration shall be conducted in English language at Hyderabad and the award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties."

11. In the light of the above, this Arbitration Application

is allowed and Mrs. K. Sailaja, Retired District Judge,

R/o Flat No.102, Hunsvilla Apartments, Mettuguda,

Secunderabad, Hyderabad - 500 017, is appointed as an

arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the

applicants and the respondents.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J April 23, 2025 ssm KL,J AA_295_2024

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

Arbitration Application No.295 of 2024

April 23, 2025

ssm