ARBAPPL/88/2025 of MR. KUMAR SRINIVAS PENUMETESSA VARMA Vs MR. VISHNU VARDHAN MALIKIREDDY on 1 April 2026

ORDER:

I leard Mr'. Dut'r,a Pavatl Kunlar. lcarncd coutrsel for the applicant; Mr. KiLan Kiran Kota, lcarned ctlunscl tbr the respondent No' l ' Mr. Parikshith K., learned counsel fbr the respondent No'2' and Mr. Manideep Madhavarapr-r, lcartlccl counsel fbr the respondent Nos'3 to

2. 'fhe instant Albitration Application undel Section ll(6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act. 1996 (for sho( the 'Act') has been filed by the applicant seckir-rg ior appointment of an Arbitrator to

Pagc 2 of 9 adjudicate upon the craims that have arisen bctrveen trrr. rppricant and the respondenls llorving lrom the Mcrtroranclurrr ol. ( : rrpronrise dated t4.03.2022

3. The facts which led to the filing of rhe rr r:unt Arbirration Application are that the applicant is said to havc tbuntlt J a company by name M/s. Super Surfaces India pvt. Ltd.. which r,vrr. rrcorporated on 14.07.2014. The company is saicl to bc involved in thc lr riness olluxury texture paints supply and application_ Respondent No. i:; s.id to have. in between April. 20r9 to February, 202 r, in'ested a, Lounr of-about Rs.7 crores in the respondent No.2 compa,\.and u,as allr tcrl 45% ol_thc shares. Shortly alter the respondenr No. I acquircd 459, ,l.the equity in the cornpany, because of the so_called highhanded and b: rrvioral issues, ceftain disputes arouse between the parties.

4. It is contended that as a consequcnce of.the disputr. a l,-;w criminal cases were registcred agairrst thc applicant, r,vho was arsr rrrrcsted ftrr a brief period and latcr released on bail. Finally, ir i said that a Mernorandum ol compromise-cunr-Agrecrnent torvards,irll ancl ll,al Page 3 ol9 s€ttlement was entered into betrveen all the disputing parties on 14.03.2022 which speaks of redressal ol ar.ry disputes flowing from the said Memorandum of Compromise to bc settled by way of arbitration by appointment of an Arbitrator mutually to be appointed by the parties.

5. F-or ready referencc clause 25 o[ the said Memorandum of Compromise which speaks ol redrcssal ol disputes by rvay of arbitration is reproduced hereunder, r'i2., " 25. This Agrcenre nt. lhe righl.t arul obligations of the Parlies herelo, and any clains or di.sptttc.s rclttittg lhcrctu' is gotarned b)'a'd i's to be construed in uccoiduncc rilh llrc laws' ol Repuhlic of lndia- Ary conlror)er$' r.tr claim urising oul <tf or in relulion Io inlcrprctulion of ory: of the term: ol thi: Agracmant. or tha brctth thereot'. or any claim or disltule bcttecn llrc Purlias tu thi.\ ,'lgraunent t'hit lt cannot be resolved trithin sixlt, 6U dq.s thrrntgh nuluul negtliutions shall be finally settlcd lhxtugh un trrhilraliort b-v'u sole urhilntktr nuluallv uppointed b), lhe ['artics and in accordante vilh thc Arhitralbn ond Conciliation Acl. 1996 and ils amentlment.\ lhereto The saat and vcnue of arbitrulion sholt be in llwlcrubrttl 'lalangunu The arbilrulion av,urul .';hall bc.finul ant{ hintiing trlxtn tht Purties. '

6. The applicant, meanu,hile had filed a civil suit O.S.No.54 of 2023 against the respondent hcrein before the VI Additional District Judge,

Ranga Redd1, District at Kukatpa[[y^ seeking fil dcclaration and cancellalion oi thc Nlemorar-rdum of Compromise-curr-- l.greemcnt dated 14.03.2022 and also for consequential perpetual injun: ion. Pending the suit, respondent No.2 herein entered appearance belbr. the Trial Court and filed an objection under Section 8 of the Act i.: I.A.No.l574 of 2023 praying the Courl to refer the parties to the dispLrt. to arbitration in terms of Section 8 of the Act read with section l5l ot I rc Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. lt was contended by respondent No.- befbre the l-rial Coutt that since there is arbitration clause flowing fr-c r r the agrecment, the suit itself would not be maintainable and the- r r ;pute should be ref'ened to arbitration.

7. Tl.re said I.A. flled by respondent No.2 stood al rrved vide order d,ated 21.02.2024 and the whole suit itsclf got disposcc ,rf ref'erring the pafiies to avaiI rhe remedy of arbitration. Meanwh l:, thc applicant issued notice on 12.06.2024 asking the parties lor se11l r r,. thc dispute by way of arbitration, however the respondents did not resp -rnd to [he same. After the civil suit O.S.No.54 of 2023 was disposed ot, r re only recoursc that was available with the applicant was 1o prefer. r Section 1l (6)

petition seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator, more particularly when the respondents have failed to respond to the arbitration notice issued by him. In thc arbitration notice, the applicant had suggested fbr having Mr. Krishna C.V. Gandhi, Senior Advocate, as the Arbitrator, which was objected by the respondents

8. So far as the leamed counse[ lot respondcnt No.2 and respondent Nos.3 to 9 are concerned, they have made a statement belorc thc Court that they do not have any objection on the appointrnent of an Arbitrator for redressal of the grievance betr.veen the parties for once and for all. However, So far as the leamed counsel lbr respondent No.l is concemed the primary objection which he had raised was insolar the conduct of the applicant, as according to the respondent No.l, ou the one hand the so- called Memorandum of Compromise dated 14.03.2022 is one which is said to have got executed by the applicant by cohersion and pressure put by the other respondents and at the samc breadth he is seeking for allowing of the I.A. by appointment of a sole Arbitrator.

Pagc 6 of 9

9. I'he second contention of lhe learned counsel fcr respondent No. 1 was that the applicant has already knocked the doors o.' tre Civil Court at Andhra Pradesh florvi,g lio'r the same Mernorandurr cf cor..pror,ise and at the sa.rc time the applicant cannot be permitir I to take shclter being totallv ignorant of the provisions of the Act.

10. It u,as also the contention ol. learned counsel fo that the claint petition, as it is, is not maintainable for rt applicant lrad taken a stand of the agreement being obtai and witlr du res and it cannot be saicl to be legally enlorr and if it is a legally enforceable agreement, the questit r of an Arbitt'ator does not arise. It rvas also the cont-, counsel for rcspondent No.l that even before the contention ol the applicanr is to declare the agreemert 14.03.2022 to be not sustainable for the reason tlr agreement ilself is getting vitiated on the ground of thc r3 the respondents, the arbitration clause itself would grt quashed. r,rspcndent No. I J reason that the rcd by cohersion cable agreement of appointment rt.ion of lcarncd A rbitratol the entcled into on t if the entire ounds raiscd by simultaneously

11. a) b) c) d) e)

Some of the admitted factual matrix of the case are that :- Therc does not seem to be any dispute so far as the agrcement dated 14.03.2022 entered into between the parlies; There is no dispute so far as the said agreement having an arbitration clause. There is also no dispute so far as a genuine dispute having been arisen bctween the applicant and the respondents; There is also no dispute to the extent that the respondents having got the civil suit filed by the applicant disposed oi on thc ground of arbitration clause in terms of the Memorarldum of Agreement dated 14.03.2022; arrd Respondent Nos.2 to 9 also do not have any dispute so lar as the appointrnent of an Arbitrator.

12. In the event if the instant Arbitration Application is not allowed it would result in a situation where the applicant would be rendered remediless. inasmuch as on one side the civit suit that he had fi led got disposed of directing him to avaiI the remedy of arbitration and rvhen he ,

files an arbitration application the respondents says it is not arbitrable. Thus, the applicant cannot bc rendcrcd remediless.

13. Whether the nature of relief sought for has a ry lorce or not, whether the applicant u,ould be entitled for the relief sc rght for, whether the allegations of thc applicant that the Mcmorandurr of Compromise having got executed under dzz res and by putting undru prcssure, are all disputed questions of f'act r.vhich require recordin 3 of evidence to properly adjudicate the nratter

14. In the givcn lactual circr-rmstances of the clLr :, this Courl is inclined to allor,,' the instant Arbitration Applicatiorr ;rnd appoint an arbitrator who shall in turn decide the grievances and he claiurs raised by the applicant. In the course of the deliberation, the rz rles proposed by the learned counscl for the applicant was not acceptablr 1o the other side and both the parties agreed upon for appointment of arr A.rbitrator by ttre Cour1. Upon proposing the name of llon'ble Sri Just ce G.Raghurau-r, fonner judge of this High Court to be appointed as an ,| bitrator, both the parties have expressccl their willingness and no objectic r. In view of the i I I I

I

same, this Couft appoints Hon'ble Sri Justice G.Raghuram, lormer Judge of this High Courl (PIot No.1099, Rd. No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hydcrabad, Mobile Nos.98l88192 l2 & 9440621412) to act as an Arbitrator and to pass an appropriate award in terms of the provisions of the Act. The venue of the arbitration shalI be decided mutually by the parlies subject to the consultation and agreement of the leamed Arbitrator. The lees of the learned Arbitrator also be decided mutually by the parties again in consultation and agreement with the learned Albitrator and the albitration proceedings shall be governed in accordance with the provisions of the Act

15. Accordingly, the instant Arbitration Application stands allowed.

16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending il any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/- R.KARTHIKEY JOINT REG R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. Sri Justice G. Raghuram, Former Judge, Telangana at Hyderabad (Plot No.1099, R ourt for the State of No.36, Jubilee Hills, Special Hyderabad. Mobite Nos.9818839212 & 9440621412) (By Messenger)(Along with a Copy of affidavit and material papers)

2. One CC to Mr. Duwa Pavan Kumar, Advocate {OPUCI

3. One CC to Mr. Kiran Kota, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Mr. K. Parikshith, Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to Mr. Manideep Madhavarapu Advocate IOPUCI

6. Two CD Copies KAM/PSL tu

HIGH COURT DATED: 0110412026

ORDER

ARBAPPL.No.88 ot 2025 ==: Sr;i ,PR :-.rj d l- i() 1l I ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLI(] ATION t{ Icl ( z KS f,r, t' .A *