Telangana High Court
M/S. Narayana Educational Society vs Bhupinder Singh Gill on 12 June, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, Nagesh Bheemapaka
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CMA. No.152 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar)
Heard Sri Vikram Pooserla, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri N. Jeevan Kumar, learned Counsel for the
appellants and Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondents and perused the record.
2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order
and decree passed on 21.01.2025 in Arbitration O.P. No.1110 of
2016 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District whereby the petition filed under
Section 34(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the
Award passed by the learned Arbitrator dated 10.06.2016 was
dismissed.
3. This Court while issuing notice to respondent in this
miscellaneous appeal, noting that the respondent herein while
invoking Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement dated
22.07.2010, having not issued any notice to the Appellant with
regard to the dispute and appointing the sole Arbitrator unilaterally,
who thereafter having passed an Award, to be contrary to the
mandatory procedure prescribed as to issuing notice of dispute, and
seeking consent has not been followed, had stayed the order of the
District Court under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing and on being
queried by this Court, learned Counsel for respondent fairly
submits that no specific notice as to the existence of the dispute
requiring it to be resolved through arbitration and seeking consent
of the appellant for appointing an Arbitrator for the said purpose
has been issued.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent however submits that the
appellant having received notice from the Arbitrator of he having
entered reference did not choose to submit any written statement or
documents, resulting in the Arbitrator passing the Award and as
such it is not open for the appellant to dispute that the Arbitrator
was appointed unilaterally and thus the Award rendered by him
being vide abinitio.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents however submits that if
this Court were to hold that initiation of arbitration proceedings
initially and the Award passed thereafter on 10.06.2016 to be
vitiated by the procedural lapses, the respondents may be granted
liberty to initiate proceedings afresh.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and taking note of
the fact that no notice of arbitration has been issued by the
respondents before initiating proceedings, this Court is of the view
that the Award as passed by the learned Arbitrator as affirmed by
the order in Arbitration O.P. No.1110 of 2016 cannot be said in
conformity with law laid down by the Apex Court in Perkins
Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. 1 and TRF Ltd. V.
Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., 2 for it to be sustained.
8. Accordingly, the CMA is allowed. The impugned order dated
21.01.2025 and award dated 10.06.2016 are hereby set aside. The
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517
(2017) 8 SCC 377
parties are at liberty to take further steps in terms of the agreement
dated 22.07.2010, if so advised.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
_________________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Date: 12-06-2025
MRKR
