[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
M/S. Pinaki Infrastructures Private ... vs M/S. Vasishta Mantena Nh4 Jv on 1 April, 2026
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.83 of 2025
DATE: 01.04.2026
Between:
M/s. Pinaki Infrastructure Private Limited.
...Applicant
AND
M/s. Vasishta Mantena NH4 JV.
...Respondent
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Bhaskar Muthyala, learned counsel for the applicant;
and Mr. Naumene Suraparaj Karlapalem, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. The instant Arbitration Application under Section 11 (5) & (6) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act') has been
filed by the applicant seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator to
adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the applicant and
the respondent as per clause 16 of both the sub-contract agreements
dated 07.01.2019.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the applicant is a company
incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and carries
out a wide range of infrastructure and engineering activities. Its core
business includes executing civil and electrical engineering projects such
as construction of transmission and distribution lines, substations, and
turnkey power projects and is also involved in manufacturing
components for power infrastructure. The applicant company also has its
business in renewable and conventional energy sectors (solar, wind,
thermal, etc.), industrial electrification, and automation and also
undertakes water infrastructure projects like dams, reservoirs, pipelines,
and distribution systems. Further, the applicant company is also engaged
in housing and development projects (independently or through joint
ventures) and deals in generation, distribution, supply, import, export,
and trading of electricity and energy-related products in various forms.
On 07.01.2019 both the parties entered into two sub-contract
agreements; one for construction / shifting of electrical utilities along
ongoing widening and construction work of NH-4 in Andaman and
Nicobar Islands and rehabilitation and another for upgradation of section
from Km 206.00 to Km 239.425 of NH-4 (total length 33.405 Km) of
NH-4 to 2 lane with hard shoulder in the Union Territory in Andaman &
Nicobar Islands on EPC basis.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that quality work was
carried out by the applicant until oral instructions were received from the
respondent directing cessation of the work, for reasons best known to the
respondent. It is further submitted that the applicant has raised invoices
timely, but the respondent failed to clear the same in a time-bound
manner and the applicant also approached the respondent to clear the
same in time but the respondent failed in doing so.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in
terms of clause 16 of the sub-contract agreements, dated 07.01.2019, the
applicant sent a notice to the respondent for settlement of disputes by
appointment of Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, Senior Advocate as a sole
Arbitrator, however the respondent rejected the said proposal stating that
since they have failed in giving consent regarding appointment of
Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, Senior Advocate as a sole Arbitrator, they
do not intend to proceed with arbitration on the said terms.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
opposing the instant Arbitration Application submits that the respondent
has never instructed the applicant to stop the work either orally or in
writing. However, the learned counsel for the respondent does not
dispute the existence of the arbitration clause in sub-contract agreements,
dated 07.01.2019, which provides a mechanism for resolving disputes
through the appointment of an Arbitrator.
7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on
perusal of records, undisputedly there is an arbitration clause in the
agreement dated 07.01.2019to resolve the dispute by way of arbitration.
It would be trite at this juncture to take note of the arbitration clause
which is reflected in the agreement dated 07.01.2019. For ready
reference, the arbitration clause i.e. clause 16 of the agreement dated
07.01.2019 is reproduced hereunder, viz.,
"16. Arbitration:
Any dispute resulting from this agreement shall be settled amicably
by mutual consultation. In the event if amicable settlement is not
reached in any particular case, the dispute shall be referred to
arbitration to a Sole Arbitrator to be mutually agreed by and
between PIPL and the NH4 JV. The venue for arbitration shall be at
Hyderabad and each party shall bear its expenses. The decision of
the majority of the arbitrators shall be final and binding on both the
parties. Subject to the above, the courts in the city of Hyderabad
shall alone have jurisdiction to entertain any litigation relating to or
arising out of this agreement."
8. A plain reading of the aforesaid clause makes it amply clear that
any dispute arising out of or relating to the agreement, has to be resolved
by way of negotiations and still if the dispute stands unresolved, the
same has to be referred to arbitration. Furthermore, all the objections that
the respondent have can be raised before the Arbitrator, which the
Arbitrator is expected to take note of, and decide the same after hearing
both the sides in accordance with law.
9. In the given factual circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to appoint an arbitrator who shall in turn decide the grievances
and the claims raised by the applicant. In the course of the deliberation,
learned counsel for the parties accepted the suggestion of Hon'ble Sri
Justice P.Naveen Rao, former judge of this High Court to be appointed as
an Arbitrator and adjudicate the claim raised by the applicant.
Accordingly, this Court appoints Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao,
former Judge of this High Court (#3001, My Home Bhooja, Block-A,
Plot Nos.22-24 & 31-33, Rayadurgam, Ranga Reddy District, Mobile
No.8374012311) to act as an Arbitrator and to pass appropriate award in
terms of the provisions of the Act. The venue of the arbitration shall be
decided mutually by the parties subject to the consultation and
agreement of the learned Arbitrator. The fees of the learned Arbitrator
also be decided mutually by the parties again in consultation and
agreement with the learned Arbitrator and the arbitration proceedings
shall be governed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
10. The instant Arbitration Application accordingly stands allowed.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 01.04.2026
Note: Office to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator.
(B/o)GSD
