CRP/3012/2025 of Ms. BOLLUPALLI MADHAVILATHA Vs WEISS TECHNIK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED on 2 September 2026

1. WEISS TECHNIK INDIA PRIVATE LllMlTED, Having its Registered Office at 2nd floor, Sudheer Tapani Towers 3-6'271, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 500029. Rep. by its Vice President - Projects and Services, IVlr. Bhaskar Thobbi . . Res p o n d e nUPetitio n e r 2 JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD (Retd)., Villa No.41, Empire lnsignia, Peerancheru, Behind Ara Misamma Temple, Kalimatha lvlandir, RR District 500091. (Respondent No.2 is not necessary Party) ... Respon denURes ponde nt l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY the operation of orders Dated 06 03.2025 passed in ARB OP NO.4B OF 2024 by lhe Honble Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Crvil Court, Hyderabad.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petitron under Section 151 of CPC prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil fi ed in support of the petition. the High Court may be pleased take up the above CRP for early lrsting and disposal of the same as expeditrously as possible. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. M Krishna Chaitanya Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri M Swatej representing Sri Mohammed Sanaullah Farhan The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AI{D THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA Civil Revision Petition No.30l2 of 2025 Datez 02.09.2026 (CNR No. HBH C0 t0 47 31 E202s) Between: Bollupalli Madhavilatha. And Weiss Technik India P\,1. Ltd., and another . . . Petitioner ...Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lal<shman) Heard Sri M.Krishna Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Swatej, leamed counsel representing Sri Mohammed Sanaullah Farhan, leamed counsel for the respondent No.1

2. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 06.03.2025 in Arb.O.P.No.48 of 2024 passed by the leamed XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter be referred to as 'trial Court').

3. On the application filed by the I't respondent in Arbitration Application No.3 of 2021 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity'the Act of 1996'), this Court, vrtle order dated 07.06.2021 allowed the same appointing the 2nd respondent as arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the I" respondent.

4. When the arbitral proceedings were posted for I " respondent' s/c laiman t's evidence, 1" respondent had filed an application under Section 29(AX5) of the Act of 1996 vide Arb.O.P.No.48 of 2024 before the leamed trial Court to extend the mandate of lnd respondent for a period of one year from I 4.05.2024 to I 4.05.1015

5. Vide impugned order dated 06.03.2025, learned trial Court allowed the said application and extended the mandate of the 2nd respondent fbr a period of one year from 14.05.2024 to 14.05.2025 in terms of Section 29(AX5) of the Act of 1996. Challenging the said order, petitioner preferred the present revision.

6. Vide ordcr dated 26.08.2025, this Court stayed the impugned order until further orders on the ground that the leamed trial Court has no jurisdiction to enrertain the mandate of the arbitrator and it is onlv the lligh Court that is empowered to grant said extension.

7. It is apt to note that in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule and othersr, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to extend the mandate of the arbitrator in terms of Section 29(AX5) of the Act of 1996. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the definition of 'Court' in terms of Section 2(l)(e) of the Act of 1996 and held that the Principal Civil Court, having original jurisdiction has the power to extend the mandate in terms of Section 29(AX5) of the Act of 1996. In the light of the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the leamed trial Court.

8. At this stage, Sri M.Krishna Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is the l't respondent/claimant who filed an application to reopen P.W.l's evidence at the last minute. Therefore, for the lapses on the part of the l't respondent/claimant, the petitioner, who is an unemployed person, the 1't respondent cannot be penalized for paying arbitrator's fee in terms of the Act of 1996.

9. Referring to Sections 38 and 39 of the Act of 1996, Sri R.Swatej, leamed counsel for the 1" respondent/claimant would ' MANUlscloog3/2ozo -I

To, contend that it is fbr the arbitrator to decide the same and arbitrator vvillhave lien over the Award.

10. In the light o1'the same, we will leave the said aspect to the discretion of the learned Arbitrator I 1. However, by order dated 26.08.2025, proceedings before the leamed Arbitrator have been stayed from the said date. Therefore, we intend to cxtend the mandate from the date of the impugned order, for a period of one year, excluding the period from the date of order of sta1, i.e., 26.08.2025 till today.

12. Therefore. this revision petition is disposed of leaving it open to the discretion of the leamed Arbitrator to decide the fee in terms of Sections 38 and 39 of the Act of 1996 and the mandate is extcnded by one (1) year by excluding the period from26.08.2025 to today. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs SD/. M.OSMAN ALI BAIG SISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER 1 The Xl Addrtional Chief Judge. City Civrl Court, Hyderabad 2 one CC to SRI rVI KRISHNA CHAITANYA, Advocate IOPUC] 3 one cc to sRr r\4OHAMI\,1ED SANAULLAH FARHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies ,\IX C;\ ii \q_

HIGH COURT DATED: 0210912026

ORDER

CRP.No.3012 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS TA C c H

t oL'

SE P Pz r.l -1, ro0 * i: e c Y?d* \+ ffizt * PA'; s