Telangana High Court

ARBAPPL/160/2025 of Mr. Vallury Giridhar Kumar Vs M/s. ANJANADRI CONSTRUCTIONS on 6 March 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

.or*f3*rHroBhrE oF TELANGANA tr'tBi''iJU5^'^[T-'JI,PJ^JK1?I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [ 316s I K.LAKSHTI4AN Between: 1. Mr. Vafiur " ;1:',*1n;gg*nuuAtlr:*r*qft $,ff,utrliffi 2. Sri Ram p , $ :ffi,mnffiffiiffNr,-n in*ullff* :#; o cc: $ ;T;:3:,f ft [ t[:! ssir? Ri,?35 R ff:la ff&

[ 3168 I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

ARBTTRATTON ApPtlcaTlON N9: 160 OF 2025

Between:

AND

1,

1. Mr. Vallury Giridhar Kumar, S/o.-S-ri. V Ggpq!?.R,qo lAgep-about S9.years'

occ- privaie lervice fii6. f-f.ruo.f 2-745116t7_, Plot No.31., Mahgqlvgri Nagar, ehlrith fligai -Coforir, HVO-eiaOaO-500018 now residiru lt H.No'^.12-4- 75l1/F-306, Sri tixmi'rujiayani Residency, Near lndira Gandhi Statue'

Moosapet, Hyderabad-s0O0 1 8.

2. Sri Ram Prakash Padullaparty, s/o. Late sri PS. Rao, aged.about 6.2 Years, Occ- Service, Rio. O, Wiiinafii' Street, HeqAerson, Auckland, New. Zealand - 0612 ;ep i,thid CpA

'noro-ei Sri brinivas nggt'tqYr"!.-ar Mudumbai S/o' Late

M. Narasimhacharlu R/o.H.No.1g-f -igAla, pt-ot trto-.tSl?' \llqtltl-Nagar, Lane Beside E-seva, frloini Nigir, Balanagar Ranga Reddy District-S00O18'

3. Sri Elaswarapu Ramakrishna, S/ o. Sri E Prasada Rao, aged about.4!^Y119rs, occ- services, H.No. 6-3-596/86, Naveen Nagar colony, Hyderabad -500004'

...APPLICANTS

M/s. Anjanadri Constructions, ngp 9y i1t q31l"E' -at H'No'5-3-321/3' Road No.6 Vehkat Rao Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderaoao - cw - ut z Also at- M/s. Anjanadri Constructions aIl'LN9 15-27-1032' 3rd Floor' LIG' 3rd phase Near Kahakadurga fempie,-KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 - 072

2. Sri. Rambappagari Nagender Rao, S/o' Srl'. P. R?ng." Rao'^L!No'5-3-32113'

Road No.6. Va"kai nid rlagir, (Jtaipatty, Hyderabad -500 -072'

3. Smt. P. Uma Devi, Wo. Sri-P RangaRaju,.[ \o, 15-27-1032' 3rd floor' LIG'

3rd phase Near Kanakadurga T€#Fb, [<PHA Cotony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad

- 500 - 072.

...RESPONDENTS

Arbitration Application filed Under section 11(5).and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Aci, t 996 Read with Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrator'

1996 praying that in the circumstances stated in accompanying affidayit this Hon'ble Court to.

a. Appoint an Arbitrator on behalf of tlre Respondents in terms of Clause No.29 of the Registered Development Agreement bearing Document No'22478

of 2019 dated 1710912019, who would appoint a presiding arbitrator along with the Arbitrator ttominated by the Applicant or in alternative Appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes betWeen the Applicant,and the Respondents

b. To award costs of the Application

lA NO: 1OF 202:,5

Petition under rule 32 of CPC R/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances s;tated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the deponent herein to represent the Petitioner herein (Applicant No.2)

Gounselfor the Petitioners: Sri M.v. Raghunandan Reddy representing SriVivek Jain Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Rajashekar representing Sri G. Vamshi Krishna The Gourt made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT: HYDERABAD

HON'BLB SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

PP

TI

No.

F

DATE:06-03-2026

Befween:

Mr. Vallury Giridhar Kumar & others

Vs.

IWs. Anjanadri Constructions & others

. Applicants

Respondents

This Court delivered the lollowing:

ORDER (ORAL)

Both Mr. M.V. Raghunandan Reddy, leamed counsel representing Mr. vivek Jain, learned counsel fbr the applicants and Mr. K. Rajashekar, learned counsel representing Mr. G. Vamshi Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions.

would submit that during pendency of the present application, both the parties settled the disputes and cancelled the subject Development Agreement. In the light of the same, nothing remains in the present arbitration application, to adjudicate furthcr.

This Arbitration Application is accordingly clismissed as infructuous. In the circurnstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

i

i

lI

IIqII

I

I

:

I

Ar; a sequer thereto, misceraneous applications, if any, pending in the Arbitration Apprication shall stand closed.

SD/. M.VIJAYA BHASKER

JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

1. One CC to SriVivek Jain, Advocate [OpUC]

2. One CC to SriG. Vamshi Krishna, Advocate IOPUC]

3. Two CD Copies

SECTION OFFICER

To,

VFYBAw

HIGH COURT

DATED: 06/03/2026

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

ORDER

ARBAPP!-.No.1 60 of 2025 DISMISSING THE ARB ITRATION APPLICATION AS INFRUCTUOUS 1HES () tJ 16 ilAfl mfr z I .L f;+.,, x

6. "fld Ha&

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead