Telangana High Court
ARBAPPL/165/2025 of M/s. ARES ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs M/s. CHINTALA SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED on 13 March 2026
COURTfO-R_THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE THIRT_EENTH DAY OF MARCHrwo rHousAND AND rwEnriv i,x PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN Between: AND Counset for the Applicant: Sri Kanumury Ram pruthvish Counsel for the Respondent : None Appeared The Court made the following:
IN THE HIGH COURTfO-R_THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY THE THIRT_EENTH DAY OF MARCH
rwo rHousAND AND rwEnriv i,x
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
Between:
AND
Counset for the Applicant: Sri Kanumury Ram pruthvish Counsel for the Respondent : None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER
M/S. ARES ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY rEgiStErEd under the comoanies A"t,-'zoii"ilin its registered office at B_2_
293tB2rHEt11, prot trto. ii, ;;;"'."n.rir", lrrr-ii""' Hirts, Hyderabad.
Tetansana - s0ooe6, Representeii, ,r3 oir".biilii'lisHnrvr ALLA s/o.
Dinesh Ara, Ased "oori5i-%][, dJ" eusiness, e_j _26?)aznet11, prot No.
11, Huda enclave, Jubileen,;.,-H'yoIrliaO, Tetangana _ s,o096
l[f":H[It5:i9lls PRrvArE tlYll1?,, A company resistered under $i'^t-H",**si%;,q$:s[i"?€firl,?-E#:s:#lxffi [ 3168 I
...APPLICANT
...RESPONDENT
Arbitration Apprication under section 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and conciriation Act, 1gg6 R/w scheme for Appointment of Arbitrato r, 2017 praying that this court may be pleased to appoint a sore Arbitrator to resorve the disputes between the Applicant and the Respondent arising out of the Franchise Agreement Dated 19.02.2020.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Date: 13.03.2026
Between
M/s Ares Entertainment Private Limit6d
and
Mis Chintala Sports Private Limited
......Applicant
.Respondent
This Court made the following
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
He,ard sri Kanumury Ram Pruthvish, learned counsel for the Applicant:.
2. Despite service of notice, none appears for the Respondent.
3. 'rhis Arbitration Application is filed under section I I (5) and
(6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act, L996') fcrr appointment of a sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
4. Iloth the Applicant and Respondent have entered into Franchise Agreemerrt dated 19.02.2020 with spEeifid-T6trrs-md-*c-onditions mentionerl therein. :,;**'6{&r{#
5. According to the Applicant, he has paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) towards security deposit in terms of the said agreement. On expiry of the said Franchise Agreement, the Respondent has to return the said security deposit amount to the Applicant. The said Franchise Agreement dated 19.02.2020 was not even put into operation due to COVID. Even then, the Respondent has not returned the said security deposit of Rs.20 Lakhs. Therefore, invoking the arbitration clause, the Applicant has issued legal notice dated 09.06.2025 to the Respondent, but the same was returned unserved with an endorsement 'No such person in the address'. Therefore, the Applicant has filed the present application.
6. Perusal of the aforesaid Franchise Agreement dated 19.02.2020 would reveal that the Applicant has deposited an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs towards security deposit and after expiry of the said agreement, the Respondent has not returned the said amount. Thus, there is dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent with regard to return of the said security deposit.
) \
7. Clause l6 of the said Franchise Agreement which deals with the Dispute Resolution is relevant and the same is extracted below:- I 6. DII;PUI'E RESOLUTION l6.l Any dispute, controversy, claim or disagreement of any kind whatsoever between or among the Parties arising under, out of or in connection with, this Agreenrent, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termin:rtion (a "Dispute") shall, upon the written request (a "Request") of any Party, be referred to sole arbitrator appointed by both parties by mutual conseni. If the Parties fail to agree upon the sole arbitrator, such arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Invoking; the said clause, it has issued notice dated 09.06.2025 to the Respondent and the same was returned unserved with an endorsement
8. In the light of the aforesaid facts, this court is of the view that th'ere are are arbitrable in nature.
9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Arbitration Application is allowed. Accordingly, Sri D. Ravindra Sharma, Retired District Judge, Mobile No.98487g0gzg, H.No.I3-10-9i Flat No.20l, vyshnavi Apartments, New Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad, is appointed 'No such person in the address". disputes between the Applicant and Respondent and the same \I irffin:.]ri as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The parties are at liberty to take all the available pleas and defences before the learned sole Arbitrator. Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, in this Arbitration Application, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ Sd/. B.SATYAVATHI JOINT REGTSTRAR G SEC.TION OFFICER To, VTYBA
1. Sri D- Ravindra_sharma, Retired-District.rudge, Mobire No. gg4g7gog2g, H.No.13-10_95, Ftat r.r..' ztii,'Wshlqvi Ap;il#.,_New Gaddiannaram, I:flt11r,"t*io""iar .a-esleii"'l Jaronfi;ffi' :'c.py or affidavii and
2. One CC to Sri Kanumury Ram pruthvish, Advocate tOpUCl
3. Two CD Copies U _w-:" I I
I HIGH COURT DATED: 1gtOSt2O26
ORDER
ARBAPpL.No.1GS of 2025 S t 3 1 rllAfl 2$26 * THE TION APPLICATION v \ b