ARBAPPL/128/2025 of SAFE SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITALS Vs UNIQUE INIDA CONSTRUCTIONS on 24 September 2026

1. Unique lnida Constructions, O/o 306 and 307, 3'd Floor, T - '19 Towers, Ranigunj, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500003 Rep by its Properties 2 lVr. Nikhil Champa Lal Jain, S/o Not Known, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. D.No. 6-31237, 123711, Rai Bhavan Road, Sethi Towers, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500082.

3. l\,4rs. Apeksha Jain, Wo Nikhil Champa Lal Jain, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o- D.No. 6-31237, 123711, Rai Bhavan Road sethi Towers' Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500082. ...RESPONDENTS

re-r Arbitration Application under Section 1 1(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, read with Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators 1996 praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: Appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the Applicants and Respondents under Clause 3.0 of the Unregistered lnr'estment Agreement entered on 27IO112022 Counsel for Applicants: Sri. Burma Chakrapani Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Boora Vijaya Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER

- THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.128 of 2025 (CNR No. HBH co 103692920251 DATE OF ORDER: 24.09.2026 Reserved oll.: L8.O9.2O26 Pronounced on Uploaded on : 24.09 2026 :24.O9.2026 BETWEEN Sar lc Supt:r Spccralitv llospit.ris Arrct 'lu,o ()thcrs ANI) Uniqut: India Cortstruclions, rcp. br. its I)roprictor and l'wo Ot h('rs Applican ts Rcspondcnts Mr.llurma Clrakrapanr, lcarned counscl ilppearlng tbr thc appllcrtnLs. Mr.Boora VUava Kumar, learned counsel appcaring tbr Lhe respondents ORDER: lt\ t llott l)lt"ltct (. .\/r:.r-')iirr' , t )Ji(tt taclury(t) L 'l'hc Arbit.ratior-r Appllcatron :rriscs ouI ol an Irlvt:stmct-tt Agreement dated 27.01.2022 executed between the applicants and thc rcspondcnl s.

2. As per thc Invcstmcnt Agrecmcnt datcd 27.01 .2022, th<' respondents agreed to jnvest Rs. 16,00,0O,000/ - in thc applicarrts'hospitr,rl ernd, in cxchangc, acquirc 4Ook of shares of thc ',rrppliirirnt No. I ,/llostrrir-al. 'l'hc invcstmer)t was to tie arrangcd bv Lhc rcspondcnts u'ithrn 30 62v5 of signing th(l Investment Agrcemcnt. The Inveslment Agreemellt contains an Arbitratio:-r Clause under Clause No.3.0 thereof.

3. Dispurcs arosc bctrveen thc parties in respcct of tht: allegcd violation of thc lerms of thc lnvesitmcn[ Agreement on the part of the respondents.

4. According to lcarncd counscl appearing lor the applican[s, the respondents had agreed 'to arrange an investment of Rs. 16,00,00,OOO/ in the applicanL No.1,/Hospi.al, The total invcstmcnt ol' Rs. 16:,00,00,t10Q/ was to be divided rnto Rs,12,00,OO,OOO/ towards 409/o cquitl- eLnd Rs.4,00,O0,00O/- structure as per company 1aw guidelines as mentioned in Clause No. 16. Counsel further submits that as per Clause No.16, the rcspondents wcre obligated to arrange a sum ol Rs.50,O0,OOO/- on or beforc 01 .O1.2022, Rs 1,25,00,000/- on or before 10,02.2022, Rs.5O,0O,00O/- on or before 28.02.2022 and lls.9,75,OO,OOO/ uithin 4 5 months thereaf cr. Couns<:l submits that thc respondcnts hou'c:vcr .trranged onll'' Rs.3,85,00,OOO/- (as opposed to Rs.16,00,00,000/-) that too in instalments upLt: 1 2.09.2022.

-

5. Counsel submits that due to the shortfall of the required investment and, on account of breach on the part of the respondents, the applicants were lorced to alienate their personal assets and avail high-interest loans. The applicants were ultimately compcllcd lo sell tht: cntire hospital business in December, 2023 undcr firtanr:ral distress. Counsel further submits that the rcsportdcnts abandoned the applicants after payment of Rs.3,85,00,000/ on 12.O9.2022 and thereafter failed to respond to the applicants' ca1ls and Notices thereafter.

6. Learncd counscl appcaring for thc rcspondents disputes the existence of an Arbilrat.ion Agrdement and consequently any basis for seeking appoin tmcnt of an Arbitrator. Counsel further submits that the applicanl s have sold thc hospital business to third parties in December, 2023 and are hence disentitled from raising any dispute wil h thc respondents. It is also submitted that the parties to the Arbitratron Application were not parties to the Investment Agrecment.

7. I have heard thc rospcct.ive contentions made on behalf of the parties -

8. Clause No.3.0 of the lnvestm<:r t Agrcemcnt dated 27 .O1.2022 contains the Arbitration n greernent. 'l'he Arbitratron Agreement consists of sub-clauses 3.0 - 3.8, whir:h provide that disputes arising betwce n the parties in conne,:tion with the validity. interpretation, implcmentation or anv alicged breach of the Agreement including any qucsti()n wi h regard to termination of the Agrccmcllt must first underg, r a mandatory sixty days amicable settleme nl period folkrwed b',. a thirty days Notice to the other party in writipg. In the event of such farlure, the dispute shall be referred to a mut'-rally zLppointed Sole Arbitrator in Hyderabad. 'lhe arbitration proceedings shall be governed b1' The Arbitration and Conciliation A rt, 1996 (A&C Act). The Arbitration Au,ard must be substantiated in writing, with costs borne by the unsuccessful party as dctr'rmined by the Arbitrator, and is enforceable in an) competent Court. AdditionaUy, the Clause further states that the pa.ties retain the liberty to approach competent Courts rn I yderat,ad for interim measures of protection and this entire Arbitrarion provision explicrt11. survives the termination ol thc Agrc()mcr.t.

9. It is evrdcnt fiom thc documcnt placr:d on rccord that the applicants issued a l,egal Notice for the first tirne to the - respondents on 27.O3.2O2O calling upon thc respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 1 0,O0,00,000/ - as compensation for breach of the Investment Agreement along with interest @ 24%o per annum. Thc applicant.s rssucd a sccorrci l-cgal Notice to the respondents on 24 .O3.2025 statrng t.hat the applicants suffered severe financial distress on account of breach on the part of the respondents. The apphcants sought compensation of Rs.20,0O,00,000/ for busincss collapse, loss of assets and burden of debt. Iloth lhe Noticcs were received by the respondents. Proof of receipts is part of thc record.

10. The applicants ultimatcl)' issricd thc Nol.ice on 14.O5.2025 for invoking thc arbitration Clausc i.c., Clausc No.3.0 of the all lhe contentions raiscd by thr: applicants and raised a Countcr Claim of rcfund oI Rs.4,1r,t)O,O0O/ paid to the Investment Agreement. In the said Notice, which was duly received by the respondents, the apphcants relterated the contentions raised rn their carlier Lcgal Notrces and nominated a Re tired Chief Justicc of the Patna I ligh Court as thcir Arbitrator The respondents replied to this Noticc on 1 6 .O5 .2025, denying apphcants as initial investmont along nrth interest threreon at the rate bf 24o/o Per annum -; ,.

-

11. 1t is evidcnt from thc arguments and the rnaterial placed on record that there ts a live and subsisting dispr-Lte between the parties. The respondr:nts' contention of the absence of a valid Arbitration Agreement, u'hich is capabl: of enfol-cement, is contrarv to the admitted facts. In any event, asj stated above, the Arbitratron Agrecment also enc()mpasses questions concerning the validity, lnte rpretation, impk:mentation or alleged breach of any condition of the Agre.ement. including any question as to the ternination oI the arbitrrttion aEreement.

12. Moreover, the respondents' contention that the parties to the present Arbrtration Applica'tion were not parties to the Arbitration Agrcement is incorrect and wil.hout basis since the Investment Agrccmcnt <:lcarlr mcnttons thc nami:s of both the parties representing the applicants'hospitrrl. Th,: fact that the respondent No.1 is not a party to the Inve stmenl Agreement is immaterial since thc Investment Agreement also mentions the name of the respondent No.1 described as a proprietary firm being represented by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as its Proprietors.

-

13. Furthermore, the respondents' additional ground that the applicants have sold thc hosprtal busincss to third parties does not obliteratc thc dispute. 'lhe drspute remains valid as on date, namely, the applicants clarm for damages against the respondents and the respondents Counter claim of refund of Rs.4,I5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24oh per annum. It is also cvidcnt fiom the pleadings and correspondence on record that the applicants tried to amicably settle the matter but such attempts were rebutted by the respondents. The Counter claim raised by the respondents rn the reply Notice further bolsters" the existence of a dispute between the partics, which falls within the scope of Clause No.3.0 of the Investment Agreement.

14. Hencr:, this CourL is o[ Lhe- considered view that the present case satishes the statutory conditions for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under section 1 1(5) of the A&C Act. The respondents have dispuled the contentions in the applicants' Notice invoking arbitration and havc wrongly reiuted the existence of the Arbitration Agreemen 1.. In essence, the respondents have failed to act as rcquircd under Clause No.3.0 of thc Investment. Agr-ccmcnt in tcrms ol the appointment ,l

To procedure agreed upon by the Parties uLnder rhe Arbitration Agreement

15. A.A.No,l2a of 2025, along w,ith all ccnnccted applications, is accordingly allowed appointrng Ms. Srrt. .Jus _rce G. Rohini, Retired Chief Justrce, High Court of Dclhi, H.No..1.3.108/ 153 & 1,72, 'SURYA', New Friends Colony, phase 2, Attapur, Hyderguda, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga R<:ddy District 5OO 048, Mobile No.8527O27O27, as thc Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The parties shall appear before the Sole Arbitrator on 10.10.2026 at 11:00 A.lu{., alor-rg with a copy of this order. 'I'he Sok: erbitraLo'r shall th:rcaftc- proccecl with the arbitral proccedrngs in accordance with law. SD/- M. VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Smt. Justice G. Rohrni, Retired Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi, H.No.3 3.108/153 & 172, 'SURYA", New Friends Colony, Phase-2, Attapur, hyderaguda, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District -500 048, tt4obile No.8527 O27 O27 (By Speed Post) (Along wi'lh a Copy of affidavit and material papers) One CC to Sri. Burma Chakrapani, Advocate [OPIJC]

2. One CC to Sri. Boora Vijaya Kumar, Advocate [OF'UC]

3. Two CD Copies Pr/GNK \w

HIGH COURT DATED: 2410912026

ORDER

ARBAPPL.No.128 of 2025 ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION + HE SI4 14: 01 ocl 2026 -) ii! z:l i :,' o &R'i c, VA- - \ 9-{ '{c {roo