ARBAPPL/179/2025 of M. Tirupalaiah Vs M/s Gokul Constructions on 7 August 2026

1. N/l/s Gokul Constructions, Represented by tts partner, P. lvladhusudan Reddy S/o. Nasimhareddy, Aged 63 years, Occupation. IVlanaging Partner, Gokul Constructions, Office at 4th Floor, Gokul's Plaza, Opp Karur Vysya Bank, Nizampet, Kukatpally, District. Rangareddy.

2. P. Madhusudan Reddy, S/o Nasimhareddy, Aged 63 years, Occupation: IVlanaging Partner. Office at 4th Floor, Gokul's Plaza, Opp.Karur Vysya Bank, Nizampet, Kukatpally, District. Rangareddy ...Applicants AND

1. M. Tirupalaiah, S/o Late Subbaraidu, Aged 55 years, Occupation: Partner Gokul Constructions,

2. M. Geetha, W/o M. Tirupalaiah, Aged 49 years, Occupation. Housewife, (Both residents of Hyderabad.) Villa No. 161, Eswar Villas, Nizampet, Kukatpally, ... Respon dents Arbitration Application under Section 1 1(5) and 1 1(6) of the Arbitration and concilration Act, 1996 praying that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to appotnt an Arbitrator in terms of the Agreement dated. 27.04.2011 between the Applicants and Respondents. counsel for the Petitioners: sri s Kishore Rai, senior counsel representing Smt Divya Rai Sohni Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P Vishnuvardhana Reddy 1!"*1}.7 ARBAPPL NO: 179 OF 2025 Between: [/1. Tirupalarah, S/o Late Subbaraidu Aged 55 years, C)ccupation. t\,4anaging Partner, Gokul Constructions, PIot No.'161, Esswar Villas, Nizampet, Kukatpally, District Ir,4ed chal- IV a I kaj g i ri ...Ap plicant AND

1. Ivlis Gokul Constructions, Represented by its partner, F,. lVladhusudan Reddy S/o Narsimhareddy Aged 63 years Occupation. tVlaraging Partner, Gokul Constructions, Office at 4th Floor, Gokul's Plaza, Op1l. Karur Vysya Bank, Nizampet. Kukatpally, District Rangareddy 2 P l\,4adhusudan Reddy S/o. Narsimhareddy Aged 03 years Occupation: l\rlanaging Partner Office at 4th Floor, Gokul's Plaza, Opp Karur Vysya Bank, Nizampet Kukatpally. District: Rangareddy ..Respondents Arbitration Application under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 R/w Scheme for Appointment of Arbitralors, 1996 praying that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to appoint a sole and inderpendent Arbitrator for resolving all the drsputes that have arrsen between the Appl cant and Respondent Under the Clause 5, 6. 7 10 and '1 '1 of the Partnership Deed So requiring to invoke Clause 14 of the Deed Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P Vishnuvardhana Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S Kishore Rai, Senior Counsel representing Smt Divya Rai Sohni The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

IIEE-7 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUST'ICE K. LAKSHMAN ARBITRATION APPLICATION Nos.l83 AND r79 OF 2025 DA'l'U: 07-0ll-2 026 lletween in Arb.Aool. No. 183 of 2025 M,'s. Gokul Constructions. rep.bv its Partner, Mr.P. Madhusudan Reddv & anothcr Vs. Mr. M. Tirupalaiah & another. . Applicants Respondents This Court made the fbllowing COMMON ORDER (ORAL) llcarcl Mr'. S. l(ishor.c Ilai, lcarncd Scnior Counscl reprcsenting Mrs. Divya Rai Sohni, lear.ned counseI lbr the applicants in Arb.Appl.No.l83 of 2025 and rcspondents in Arb.Appl. No.l79 of 2025, and Mr. P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents in Arb.Appl.No.183 of 2025 and the applicant in Arb.Appl.No. 179 of 2025.

l. 'l'hc applicanrs in Ar.b.Appl.\o lE.l ol-1025 ar.c Mr,s. CokLrl C'onstrr-rction (applicanr No. l). which is a par.tncrship lirm and Mr. p. Madhusudan Reddy (applicant No.2), paftner of applicant No. I firm, who are respondents in Arb.Appl.No.l79 of 2025. Whereas. Mr. M.

-

Kl...l Arb.Appl \os I ttl & 179 ol 2015 Tirupalaiah, partner of the aforesaid firm' is the applicant tn Arb.Appl.No.1 '79 of 2025 and respondent No' 1 in Arb Appl' No 1 83 oi2025. Respondent No'2 (Mrs M Geetha) is his r'vile

3. The applicants in both the Albitration Apptications filed the applicalions r-ttrclcr Sectiorr - 1l (5) and (6) o1- the Arbitration and Concitiation Act, 1996 (hereinaflter relened to as 'tht: Act' 1996')' to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between them pursuant to the Partnership Deed dated2T '04'2011'

4. For the sake of convenience' the partie; are hereinafler' referred to as they are amayed in Arbitration Appli:ation No' 1 83 of

5. Applicant No.2 - P Madhusudan Recldl' and respondent No.1 - M. Tirupalaiah entered into a partnership deed dated 27.04.2011 lor the purpose of carrying on busine-'s in the name of 'M/s. Gokul Constructions' (appticant No 1) for cottstruction of flats' independent houses. commercial complex' real estates' land dcvelopnrcntsanclothcl.civilcorl|tacts(Municipal(.olltracts.l{ailr,va-v'

G

KL,J Arb.Appl. Nos. 183 & l'79 of2025 Contracts and any othcr related worl<s), on the spccific terms and conditions mentione d therein

6. (l lause l4 of the said Partnership Deed deals with 'Arbitration', and it states that in case of any dispute among the paftners, the same shall be settled as per Arbitration Act, there in lorce

7. It. is the specifrc contention of learned counsel on either side that the said partncrship firm pulchased the land admeasuring 3267 square yards in Survcy Nos.52lui I , 52lecl2, 52lol3, 52lesl4, 52lecl5, 52leoles and 52les/a, situated at Mallampet Village, Gandi Maisamma - Dundigal Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, and other properties It is the specific contention of learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that Mr. M. Tirupalaiah had sold the said property under registered salc clccd bearing documc-nt No. 14425 of 2025, dated 04.01 .2025 representing M/s. (iokul Constructions as Managing Partner in favour of his wife, Mrs. Menta Geetha (Respondent No.2) without consent and knowledge of applicant No.2 (Mr. P Madhusudan Reddy). 'l-he said Tirupalaiah had also executed a -

KI-.J ^rh..\.fil,1l \o\ l8-r & ll9 ol 2l)15 registelccl sale deecl bcaring docttmcnt No 14685 r1 2015' dated 07.07.2025 representing the said Firm as Managinp' Partner in his favour in respect of the open land admeasur tng 7623 square yards in the aforesaid suruey numbers and other survey numbers situated at Mallampet Village. The aforesaid sale deeds are illel;al Respondent No.l did not have any authority to execute the sale dr:eds in favour of hirnseliTthird partv .l hus, tircrc arc disputcs bctu'ct'tr thc applicants and the respondents in both the appiications with regald to the sale of the aforesaid properties and other properties in ternrs of Partnership Deed dated 27.04.2011

8. Therefore, the applicants issued notice dated 22'07 '2025 to the respondents in tcrms o1' Section - 21 of' the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' proposing appointnrcrrt oi sri Justice P S' Narayana, Former Judge, erstwhilc High Court lor the State olAndhra Pradesh at tJy<Jerabad, as an Arbitrator, to resolve rhe disputes The respondents issued reply dated 06 08 2025, reporlinS no objection for appointment of Arbitrator. However, they have opJrosed the name of Sri Justice P.S. Narayana as an Arbitrator'

TEE )

9. Mr. P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents opposed Arbitration Application No.183 of 2025 on the ground that respondent No.2 (Mrs. M. Geetha, wife of Mr. M -l'irupalaiah) is not the panner in the said M/s. Gokul Constructions as per the partnership deed dated 27.04.2011. She is the wife of Kl...l Arb.Appl. Nos.lSl & l'79 ol2025 rcspondcnt No.l . * ho is parlrrcr o1' thc said Irirrn. -fhcrefore. ,{rbitration .\pplicaLion No. I 8l o1' l0l5 is not nraintainablc against M/s. Gokul Constructrons. r'cprcscntctl by its parlner, Mr. P her

i) He woutd further submit that M/s. Gokul Constructions represented by its partner, Mr. M.Tirupalaiah and in his individual capacity had fited an application under Section - 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, vide C.O.P.No.32 ol 2025 against the said Madhusudan Reddy and Mr. P. Madhusudan Reddy. Like-wise, the applicants have also llled similar application vide C.O.P. No.30 of 2025 against the respondents. Vide common order dated 16.10.2025, learned Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar. allowed COP No.30 of 2025 and rnade thc interim injLrnction ordcr absolLrtc in rcspcct ol'pctition '.\' to -

KI-..I n rb.Appl Nos.l83 & 179 o12025 'F' schedule prope rlies therein till coln lrlcncelrlen of arbitration procecdings. while COP No l2 o1 l()15 was allo*ccl irr palt making c-t pat'te intet'im injunction ordcr absoltrte in respect ol petition 'A' to 'G' schedule properties, till coumencernent of arbitration proceedings'

ii) On instructions, he w'or'rld lurther sLrbrnit that Mr' P Madhusudan Reddl representing M/s' Gokul Constructions sold 225 flats to third parties r'r'ithout knowledge and consent of Mr' M 'l'irupalaiah and misappropriated Crolcs of rupccs lrr lcgard to thc said submission. I atn o1'the opinitrn that the sarne can be decidcd b1' thc .,\rbitral I ribunal ttl exercisc ofits pou'crs trrlcle r Sectiorr - 1 tr ol' the Act 1996. ,l0. Whereas, learned Senior Counsel arpearing for the applicants would contend that respondent No 1 ha<t executed one of the aforesaid registered sale clceds in tavour oi his wife i'e ' respondent No.l irl rcspci:t ol thc albresaid propen) w'ithout consent and knor\,lcrlgc o1'applicant \o.1. Ihe|clbre. slrc ls also a ncccssarl party to the arbitlation proceedings.

JEffiF

KI,.,I rh.Appl No\ l8l & l?9 ot 2025 I I . ln thc Iight o1'the albrcsaid submissions' this Court is of the view that thet.e are disputes between the applicants and thc respondents in both the applications and the same are arbitral in nature.

12. Therefore,bothtl.reArbitrationApplicationsare accordingly allowecl, and Sli J uslicc Ralncsh Ranganathan' Fornter the chiel .lusticc ol lligh cor.rlt of llttarakhand is appointcd as an Arbitr.ator, to resolve the disputes. Ilouever, Iiberty is granted to both the parties to take all the pleas and contentions which they have raised in the present application and also'in the aforesaid COPs before the Arbitrator, and it is for the Arbitrator to consider and decide the same' In the circumstances of the case' therc shall be no order as to costs' As a sequcl thcrcto, tniscclliit'tcous applications' if an-v' pcnding in both the Arbitratior.r Applications shall stand closed' SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// EC ON OFFICER

1. Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, Former the Chief ce of High Court of Uttarakhand, H. No 12-13-1'174, Street No 10, Tarnaka, Secunderabad Ir4obi e No 9866509717 (By Special Messenger ) (Along affidavit and material PaPers) 2 One CC to Sri P Vishnuvardhana Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Smt Divya Rai Sohni, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies l''ry To, Sai KA with a copy of

HIGH COURT DATED: 0710812026

COMMON ORDER

ARBAPPL.Nos.183 AND 179 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATIONS WITHOUT COSTS E STATE it\ 'F

.L q ))) * SPAl ?t :De [uB 2$2t t ,C ,!1, I \71 a\ I