ARBAPPL/83/2025 of M/s. Pinaki Infrastructures Private Limited Vs M/s. Vasishta Mantena NH4 JV, on 1 April 2026

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Bhaskar Muthyala, leamed counsel f ; the applicant; and Mr. Naumene Suraparaj Karlapalem, leamed : ,rrnsel for the respondent

2. The instant Arbitration Application under Sectior I (5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act') has been filed by the applicant seeking for appointment of ru Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between tr I applicant and the respondent as per clause 16 of both the sub-contract agreements dated 07.01.2019.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the applicant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and canies out a wide range of infrastructure and engineering activities. Its core business includes executing civil and electrical engineering projects such as construction of transmission and distribution lines, substations, and turnkey power projects and is also involved in manufacturing components lor power infrastructure. The applicant company also has its business in renewable and conventional energy sectors (solar, wind, thermal, etc.), industrial electrification, and automation and also undeftakes water inlrastructure projects like darns, reservoirs, pipelines, and distribution systems. Further, the applicant company is also engaged in housing and development projects (independently or through joint ventures) and deals in generation, distribution, supply, import, export, and trading of electricity and energy-related products in various forms. On 07.01.2019 both the parties entered into two sub-contract agreements; one for construction / shifting of electrical utilities along Y Pagc 3 ol'6 ongoing widening and construction work ol NH-4 ir Andaman and Nicobar Islands and rehabilitation and another lor upgra lation of section from Km 206.00 to Km 239.425 of NH-4 (total leng.l 33.405 Krn) ot NH-4 to 2 lane with hard shoulder in the Union Territcl in Andarnan & N icobar Islands on EPC basis.

4. Leamed counsel for the applicant submits thar c rality work was carried out by the applicant until oral instructions were r rceived lrom the respondent directing cessation of the work, for reasons t :st kaown to the respondent. It is further submitted that the applicant hr raised invoices timely, but the respondent failed to clear the same r a time-bound manner and the applicant also approached the resporl ent to clear the same in time but the respondent failed in doing so.

5. [t was submitted by the learned counsel [or thr rlrplicant that in terms of clause l(r of the sub-contract agreements, datt c ()7.0 1.2019, the applicant sent a notice to the respondent for settlemcr - of disputes by appointment of Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, Senior 1.( vocate as a sole Arbitrator, however the respondent rejected the said pr,) ,osal stating that slnce they have lailed in giving consent regardinl appointment of \

Mr. Mohammed lmran Khan, Senior Advocate as a sole Arbitratoq they do not intend to proceed with arbitration on the said terms 6, On the other hand, the leamed counsel - for the respondent opposing the instant Arbitration Application submits that the respondent has never instructed the applicant to stop the work either orally or in writing. However, the leamed counsel for the respondent does not dispute the existence ol the arbitration clause in sub-contract agreements, dated 07.01.2019, which provides a mechanism for resolving disputes through the appointment of an Arbitrator.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, undisputedly there is an arbitration clause in the agreement dated 07.0 I .20 l9to resolve the dispute by way of arbitration. It would be trite at this juncture to take note of the arbitration clause which is reflected in the agreement dated 07.01.2019. For ready reference, the arbitration clause i.e. clause 16 of the agreement dated 07.01.2019 is reproduced hereunder, viz., t I

Y

" 16. Arbitration: Any dispute rasulting from this ogreemenl shall be selt t by mutual consultation. In the event if amicuble settlt, reached in any parliculor case, the dispute shall ht arbitration lo a Sole Arbilrator to be mutually agte benveen PIPL ond the NH4 JV. 7'he venue for arbitrotir t Hyderabad and each porty shall heur its expenses. Th': the najority of the arbitrators shall be final and bindiny parlies. Subjecl lo the above, the courts in the cily ol shall alone have jurisdiction to enlerlain any litigation te arising out of this agreemenl. '' I amicobly tent is nol 'a[erred to 'd by and shall be at lccision of n both the Llyderabad uting to or

8. A ptain reading of the aforesaid clause makes it Inply clear that any dispute arising out of or relating to the agreement, lri s to be resolved by way of negotiations and still if the dispute standri Lrnresolved, the same has to be relerred to arbitration. Furthermore, all tr robjections that the respondent have can be raised before the Arbirr Ltor, which the Arbitrator is expected to take note of and decide the srr re after hearing both the sides in accordance with law.

9. In the given lactual circumstances of the ca:u, this Court is inclined to appoint an arbitrator who shall in turn decii'the grievances and the claims raised by the applicant. [n the course o]' he deliberation, learned counseI for the parties accepted the suggestion of Hon'ble Sri l l l |: i l l

Page 6 ol6 Justice P.Naveen Rao, former judge of this High Court to be appointed as an Arbitrator and adjudicate the claim raised by the appticant. Accordingly, this Court appoints Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao, former Judge of this High Court (#3001, My Home Bhooja, Block-A, Plot Nos.22-24 & 3l-33, Rayadurgam, Ranga Reddy District, Mobile No.83740123 I [ ) to act as an Arbitrator and to pass appropriate award in terms of the provisions ol the Act. The venue of the arbitration shall be decided mutually by the parties subject to the consultation and agreement of the learned Arbitrator. The fees of the leamed Arbitrator also be decided mutually by the parties again in consultation and agreement with the leamed Arbitrator and the arbitration proceedings shall be governed in accordance with the provisions ofthe Act

10. The instant Arbitration Application accordingly stands allowed

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs

To, SD/. M.MANJU JOINT REGI AR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER

1. Sri Justic€ P. Naveen Rao, Former Judge of High Co rt for the State of Telangana (#3001, My Home Bhooja, Btock-A, plot 22-24 & 31-33. Rayadurgam, Ranga Reddy District, Mobile No. 83740 2311) (By Special Messenger) (Along with a Copy of affidavit and material papers) One CC to Mr. Bhaskar Muthyala, Advocate tOpUCl

2. ,3 &,fr, One CC to Mr. Naumene Suraparaj Karlapalem, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies L

HIGH COURT DATED: 0110412026 o3

?il?f il :s lii, t,4 'i u'Z i D.

ORDER

ARBAPPL.No.83 of 2025 ALLOWING THE ARBITRATTON AppLtCrr T|ON e \c H xb ( .-> *