Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 395 (TS)

Raam 4 Wheelers LLP v. Bobbili Keshav Raj Naidu

2025-04-23

K.LAKSHMAN

body2025
ORDER : (K. LAKSHMAN, J.) 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 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, 1 st 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 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. 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. 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. 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 , [(2023) 2 supreme Court cases 539] would submit that there are no disputes between the applicants and respondents. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted below: “ In Nortel Networks , [(2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 352] , this Court had an occasion to consider the decision in Vidya Drolia , [(2021)1SCC (Civ) 549] 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 , [(2017)4SCC(Civ)764] and Mayavati Trading , [(2019)4SCC(Civ)441] which continue to hold the field. It must be understood clearly that Vidya Drolia has not resurrectd the pre-amendment position on the scope of power as held in SBP&Co.v.Patel Engg.Ltd, (2005)8 SCC 618 . 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 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. 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 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.