Telangana High Court
ARBAPPL/16/2025 of Tumula Mahesh Reddy Vs M/s Property Bucket Infrastructure Private Limited on 12 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 16 OF 2025 Between: Tumula Mahesh Reddy, S/o. Late Tumula Venkat Reddy, Aged about 41 years, Occ.
I s378 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 16 OF 2025
Between:
Tumula Mahesh Reddy, S/o. Late Tumula Venkat Reddy, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Private Employee, F/o. 3-7-403lpN/57, plot No. 57, prakash Nagar, Upperpally, Attapur, Hyderabad - 500 048.
...Applicant
AND
M/s Property Bucket lnfrastructure Private Limited, Having its Registered Office at H. No. Mlc ll- 284. gth Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpaily, Hyderabad.
Telangana - 500085. Represented by its Managing Director, Sri. Munishwar Erukonda, Sio Sadaiah Erukonda. Aged About 31 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.
No. 26, Nallabelly, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh - 506349.
...Respondent
Arbitration Application under section 1 1(6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 r/w scheme for appointment of Arbitrator, 2oo2 praying that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to appoint sole arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration clause titled as 'Arbitration' in the MoU dt. 15logl2o22 for the adjudication of the claims and resolve the disputes between the applicant and Respondent company and award the costs of the present Application to the Applicant, Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Aanchal Tawry, representing Mr. Vadeendra Joshi Counsel for the Respondent : - The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI.. \NGANA
AT TTYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM I(1 )SHY
Arbitration Application No.16 of2O2
Date of orderl'12.o3.2026
BETWEEN:
Tumula Mahesh ReddY,
S/ o. Late Tumula Venkat ReddY
.. Applicant
and
M / s. Property Bucket Infrastructure Private Limited Respondent
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:
The instant Arbitration Application has been fil: I b1 the appiicant under Section I 1(6) of the Arbitration and conciliat i r:r Act, 1996 react with Scheme for appointment of Arbitrators, 2002 pr rying the court t<r appoint an arbitrator on beha,lf of the applican t in terms of thc arbitration clause "Arbitration" contained in th'' Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.09.2022 to adj udicate the : arim and to resolgc the dispute between Parties.
2. Heard Ms. Aanchal Tawry, Iearned counsel a;,1 't:aring on behalf oi Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, Iearned counsel for the appliczt I1-
3. On 14.02.2025, notice was ordered to the respondent, but the same was returned unserved. Thereafter, Iearned counsel for the applicant hled arr application seeking for permission to take out substituted service on the respondent. Accordingly, uide order dated 1L.O4.2025 in I.A.No. I of 2025 in Arbitration Application No.16 of 2025, learned counsel for the applicant was permitted to take out sewice of notice on the respondent by way of publication io Times of India, English Daily Newspaper, Hyderabad Edition and also in Siasat, Urdu Daily Newspaper. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the application had effected service of notice on the respondent by way of publication in the above neu,spapers and proof of sen'ice thereof was also Iiled before the Court.
4. Despite best effoits taken by the learned counsel for the applicant in taking steps to serire notice on the respondent personally and also through paper publication, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, this Court has no other option but to presume that respondent had been served notice sufl-rciently.
5. The dispute between the parties is that the applicant having made an investment of Rs.l0llakhs \,vith the respondent on an agreement that the respondent shall pay every month an amount of Rs.40,000/- as returns on investment / loan for a period of (24) mont rs. Hor.rrever, it rs submitted by the applicant that for the hrst period r l fir,e months th.-. respondent though did not pay the amount as agreecl rpon, but later aii amount of Rs. 1,81,333/- for the months of (l: ,ober, Novembcr, December, 2022 was paid and thereafter the responcl, rr_ failed to pa\i thc outstanding arnount of Rs.8,0O,O0O/- tor the subsequ: rt months.
Even after issuance of notice ror appointmenr ,. r an arbitrator frrr. resolving the dispute between the parties, there does r()t seem to be arrr. response from the respondent. Hence, the applica r t filed the instarl I arbitration application seeking for appointment of arl z rbitrator to resorr,,- the dispute between the parties.
7. cliven the nature of dispute that had been raist r ancr canrrassed br- the applicant and also considering the arbitration ( iluse containe(.r ir the Memorandum of Understanding entered into bt t x,een thc applic;rrrr and the respondent on rs.o9.2o22 and prima faci: proof of sen,ice of notice on the respondent also having been filed b.' the appricant. tl'iis Court is inclined to allow the arbitration application.
Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. D. Ravirr ira Sharma, reUreo District Judge, resident of Frat No.20l, H.No. 13, 0-r995, vaishn^r,
Apartments, New Gaddiannararn! Hyderabad 500 060 as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. 9 ' Needless to state that both parties are at liberty to raise a[ claims and counter claims before the sole arbitrator *,ho in turn sha,l conduct I he arbitration proceedings in accordance with provisions of the Act. The venue of arbitration shal be decided mutually by the parties subject to consultation and agreement of the learned Arbitrator. The fee payable to the learned Arbitrator shalr a-lso be decided mutually by the parties in consultation and agreement with the leamed Arbitrator.
10. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application stands allowed. No costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if alry, shall stand r:1osed. Sd/. B, SATYAVA JOINT RE R //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER
1. Mr. D. Ravindra Sharma, retired District Judge, ident of Flat No. 201 , H. No. 13-10-1995, Vaishnavi Apartments, New Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad - 500060. (By Special Messenger)(Along with a Copy of affidavit and material papers) M/s Property Bucket lnfrastructure Private Limited, Having its Registered Office at H. No. MIG ll- 284. 9th Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Telangana - 500085. Represented by its Managing Director, Sri. Munishwar Erukonda, S/o Sadaiah Erukonda. Aged About 31 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No.26, Nallabelly, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh - 506349. One CC to Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies
3.
4. DL/BA E try-
HIGH COURT DATED: 1210312026 , . .\.}.
* oN*a\ tt' U 2 t itRR Zffi *\,
2. ;b I { *
ORDER
. f-) < . .". - t'+".jt,: .\f, ARBAPPL.No.16 of 2025 ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLIC, \TION
&f b vb