ORDER:
Mr. Srinivas Chakravarthy, learned r:ounsel representing Ms. Bethamacharla Sai Haritha, learned r:ounsel for the applicarLts
Mr. K.Raghava Ramana, learned counsel representing Ms. L.Soumya, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This, application is liled under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter refe:rred to as "the Act"). The applicants seek appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
3. The parties have entered into Partnership Deed dated 31.12.2OO1. Clause 16 thereof contains an arbrtration clause and thr: same is extracted below for the fac,ilitv of reference:
" 16. A.J questions, doq$9-or disputes between the partners in respect of the partnership or regarding the
2
2
interpretation or enforcement of this deed shallbe referred to tlle arbitration of a person agreed to by the disputing parties and on failure of such agreementto a panel of arbitrators upon which each disputing party nominates one arbitrator. The decision ofthe arbitrators shall be final and binding on a-ll parties."
4. In a proceeding under Section11 (6) of the Arbitration Act, this Court has to satisfy itself whether underlying contract contains an a-rbitration agreement which provides for arbitration pertaining to disputes whichhave arisen between the parties. It is pertinent to note thatthe respondent has not disputed the execution of the Partnership Deed dated 31.L2.2OO1 which contains an arbitration clause' It is trite law that an arbitration clause which forms part of the contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of other terms of contract and the arbitration clause survives notwithstanding expiry of the agreement (see Reva Electric Car Company Private Limited vs. Freen Mobilr, A.A5ryasamy vs. A.Paramasivam2 and Vidya Drolia vs' Durga Trading CorPorationa).
t (20121 2 SCC 93
, (2O16) 10 SCC 386
3 (2021) 2 SCC 1
A
I
'7
J
5. In the instalt case, the applicants invok edthe arbitration clatLse and sent a notice under Section 21 ofthe Act dated 24.Olt.2024 to the respondent and the respondent Iiled a reply on 22.07.2024.
6. The dispute that has arisen between the parties needs to be res;olved in the manner agreed to by the parties under Partnership Deed dated 31.12.2OO1.
7 . Lealned counsel for the parties jointly subnrit that
I
a.s sole {any Former .Iudge of this Court be appointed Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties
8. In view of aforesaid submission and takitrginto account the fact that admittedlyanagreement rramely Partnership Dr:ed dated 3l.l2.2OOL exists betwet:n the parties, which has an arbitration :lause, Mr. Justice A.\/enkateswara Reddy, a former Judge of this Court (resident of Nitish Castel, FIat No.502, Narasimhapuri Colony, besides Sai Sanjeevani Hospitai, Ko:hapet, Hyderabad; Mobile No.8143517740) 1S appointed a s sole
4
4
^ a' ,l arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The pa-rties shall appear before the Arbitrator along with a copy of this order. Thereupon, the sole arbitrator shall proceed with the arbitral proceedings in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application 1S allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII
Sd/. M. VIJAYA BHASKE
JotNr REGTS)HA
g
R
R
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1
Mr. Justice A. Venkateswarlr. Rq!dy,- fgrmer Judge of Telangana High Court, f9:iq9r!oJ Nitish..Castet,..Ftat No. 502, Narasinihapuri Cot6ny, #;,des-S;iuan1eevanr Hospital, Kothapet, Hyderabad; Mobiie No. 914351770\ Bv :pec1lTes.spnger) (along with a copy of affidavit and material papers) une CC to Ms. Bethamacharla Sai Haritha Advocate [OPUC] 9n" 99t-o Ms L Soumya, Advocate tOpUCl
/
HIGH COURT
DATED:0 8111 12024
HES , ^t r€.1 so
,J
1E N$!M OE.spaTc H
ORDER
ARBAPPL.No.242 of2024 z.
t) n i t
ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION
6