CRP/5671/2011 of The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Chief Civil Engineer-II, Vs R.Venkat Reddy, on 8 January 2026

1. The A P S R T.C rep. by its Chief Civil Engineer-ll, N/usheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. The lVlanaging Director, APSRTC, [/lusheerabad, Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS AND R.Venkat Reddy,, S/o Late Ram Reddy, Contractor, R/o- H.No. 3-5-98/9, Narayanguda' Hyderabad ...RESpoNDENT/pETrroNER/pLATNTTFF lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the final hearing of the Civrl Revision Petition No. 5671 of 2011 by fixing an early date of hearing. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. R ANURAG, SC FOR TGRTC Counsel for the Respondent:SRl ARPITH REPRESENTING SRl. VIVEK JAIN The Court made the following: ORDER

HIGH COURT'FOR THE STATE OF TELAI\I;ANA AT HYDERABAD I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHMA]I AND T{oN'I]t,E JT]STICE V. IT,\N'TAKRISHNA RT DDY CIVtt,ITEVISI ON PETITINO No.567l OE .0ll Betrveen APSI(I'C. Represcntcd b1 its Chicl'CiviI Engineer-II Musheelabad. I Il clcrahad arrd another i I I I I I I

I I I i atld R. Venkat Itedcll This Court dclivcrcd the iollowing - . Rcsponder-rt OTTDER (Pcr Ilon ble Sri Justioe K L'akshman)

- I{eard Mr. tt. Anurag, Iearncd Standing Cc rnseI for the petitioners - Ciorporalion and Mr- Arpith, learned cotLr s :I representing Mr. Vivek Jain, leau'red counsel appcaring fol the Resp 'ndent'

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is red against the order dated 05.11-201I in I-A. No 3i8 ol 20 I1 in S' No 545 of 1989 [hercirrafter' "irnpugnccl or<leL"l passed by the le rmed V Senior Civil Judge' ()it1' Cir,il Cour1, Fly'derabad [hereinafl'er ..the Reference Court"]. .oo," . . . Petitioners

t

3. 'lhis is an unfortunate casc whero the Respondent had invoked arbitration proceedings in 1989 However, due to the present proceedings artd such othcr previous ploccedings initiated b1' the Ciorporation, the arbitration proceedir-rgs rernained pending'

4. Thc Petitioners are tl.re Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) State I{oad Transport Corporation (hereinatter relered to as 'corporation'). The Respondent is a private contractor' The facts in briel are that, pursuant to a tendet' tloated by tl-re Corporation' tl're Respondent was sclected as a contractor to construct the "Acute Medicarc and Traunia Complex,, at Gandhi Hospital, HydeLabad. Accordingly, a Work Order dated 04 04 1987 was issued to the Responder-rt to begin the construction works' Pursuant to such Work Order, the Respondent claims to have paid the F'MD and to have invested huge sums of money' However, the Respondent alleges that the corporation had not handed over the site As there was a delay in handing over the site, the Respondent claims to have addressed letters to the corporation. ln reply'to rvhich, he was iuformcd that the site rvas shilted from Gandhi Hospital to Musheerabad Jail' This was followed by other letters dated 16.06.1988 and 2206'1988 whereby the corporation infbrmed the Respondent tl-rat the site for construction of ,) "Acute Medicarc and'fraurna Complex,, was not hnaliz :d and that the Work Order dated 04.04. 1987 was cancelled.

5. Contcndins lhat thc r-rnilatcr-al ter.rnination,, ancellalion of the Work Order dated 04.04. 1987 rvas illegal .s ht r : invest,rents \\'erc alrcady rnadc, tl-re Respondcnt addressed l l3.07. 1988 seekins rhc clispLrtcs to be refen.ed to an ir t Corlroration did not aqrce lbr the r.etcrence, the Respc r O.S. No. 545 of 1989 under Secrion l0 ol the Arbitlrt Ihelcinafter "1hc Act ol 1910"].

6. lnitially, O.S. No. 545 oi l9g9 t-rlcd for rLl Arbitrator was disrnissed bv the I{el-erence Court vrr( decree dated 14.10. 199j. Aggrievcd by the sarne, I hercin pref'erred an appeal vide AAO No.62l of 1994. i dated 10.03.2000, learned Single Judge, allowed rl r setting aside the.iudgrnent and decree dated 14.10.1993 thc rnattel lor fresh disposal to appoint an Arbitrator h,-r r u'as concluded contract existcd betu.een the parlies. A1r said.jr-rdgment dared 10.03.2000 ol learned Singrr Clorporation prefened I_pA No. 16g of 2000 befbre Ilench. Vidc judgurcnt dated I:1.03.2003, a Division t lettcl dated itrator. As the lenL had filcd on Act, 1940 pointrnent of udgrnent and c respondent ide judgment said appeal nd remanded ing that there rieved by the Judge, the tl're Division cnch o1' this

Court dismissed the said appeal confirming tlie judgrnent of the learned Single .ludge. l'hus. the order o1 the leamed Single Judge attainect finality. Pursuaut to thc judgrr.rcrrt of lcatned Single Judge' the Relerence Court appointed Sri Justice Ranga Rao' Fonner Judge of High Court as an Arbitrator" Thc Corporation instead of obeying the orders of the learned Single Judge, tlled a Revision vide CRP No'2552 of 2005 challenging the appointtnent ol the said Arbitrator' Ilowevet ' thls Court. alter hcaL'ir.rg both sicles' disrnissed the said CRP on 05.012.2001.

7. We stre ss he re tl-rat the arbil-rator was appointed after more than 15 years since the filing of OS' No' 545 of 1989' Instead of participating in the proceedings, the Corpolation again challenged the relerence order dated 08.11 2004 in C R'P No 2552 of 2005 ]'his Courlvide order dated 05'l22OO7 dismissed the said CRP confirming the reference to arbitration and the appointment of the arbitrator'

8. Tl-re arbitral proceedings cotntrenced During its pendency' the Respondent fited an application seeking to include additional clairns to be adjudicated bv the arbitrator' These claims pertained to the atteged business loss due to thc illegal tennination of the contract and the delay car'rsed by the Corporation in appoinlment of the arbitrator, Furthcr', compensation r.vas also sougltt ,owards lcgal e\pcnses. Towards loss ol busincss, a total ol Rs. 2,2i 00,000/- (two crores and trt,cntv lakhs onlr,) r,i as claimed

9. Tlie arbitrator ref used to entertain thes -' additional / subsequcnt claims on thc gr.ound that such claims r,r,,,r : not r.eflemed lbr adjLrdication br the Reference Court in O.S. No. ,..: of 19g9. The Itefcrencc (lourt rclied on Orissa Mining Corporalio r LtrI. v. M/s obtain furthcr olders from the Ref'er.ence Court in I. lation to the Prannath Vishwana th Rarvlevt and directed thc F espondcnt to adclitional clairns

10. Accordinely, the Respondent had approachrx he Reference Corrrt vrde I.A. No. i28 ol 201I in O.S. No. 545 or' l9g9 seeking .ef'crence of the additional / subsequent claims to ar,itration. .l.he Ilet'e.cnce cou.t vrde the i,pugned order dated 05. r-. r0l r allowed the Responclerrt's application and rett.red the rdditionr l claims to the arbitrator. are cxtractcd belor.r' I l. l'hc findings of the l{efercnce Court in the irr rugned order \[{ )977 S(, ]01 .+

"25- In the installt casc as scert fiottl avcrurents in thc counter it is clcar that still thc nlattor is bcfore thc Arbitrator and tlrc stagc ttl lhc procecdings befirrc thc Arbitrator is conrins rtll lirt arurttttcnts At that -jlrncturc Ihc ctlrlttltatiorl cillllc lll.) rrith tlte ptesent petition to includc the irtiditiortal elairtrs lirr dccisiort bclorc thc arbitrator. According to Scction l0 ol'tlrc Arbitration Act all thc clisputes tllaI arosc Ilcl.ucctt tllc llltrttcs itt pttt'suatlce tll' the agrccnrcnt sltall hc tlcettlctl [)\ tllc artritrator' In tl.tc instant citsc a5 tl)c lllattcr is still pcnding befbrc the athitnttor. lltc ldditrottal claills rclcrred b1 thc corporation prinia tlrcic llccds l() bc consicler ancl exar.nined b1' thc arbitratol irlclttclirtg '"r'ith resard to rnaintainabi litl' ol' additional clairtrs- 'l'hc additional claitrs are in contittuatiott o1' disputcs bctu cen thc parlies.'l'his cotlrt ltcls [.rr rcl'erritrg thc lratter to the Arbitrary to dccitle the additional claitns also is just and propcr thcrcbl thc itt-hitrator rrill exaurine ancl dccidc tlte additional clairus ol' thc corporation in accordance u'ith larr.

25. As per thc ordcr's rn lA 51ir 1989 this court apporntcd thc t lon'blc .ltrstice Sri Lltanga Rao retired Judge ol Ilon'blc High Cotrn ol'A I' as arbitrator and the r attcr is still pcnding not at all disposcd ol coming up f-or arquntctl ts.

In victr. ol'pcndcncl, of thc nrattcr, tlri; thc adrlitional clair.ns are continuation o rc li'rrcrl to tltc arl)itrator. Irt r ierr of abovc thc ahor.e tliscus: r ;ti.itttLr lttc.it' rtccds to bc consirlcrccl an,l rc.qurrlins thc adriitional lssucs l)ccausc tlt,. i is bclsccn thc partics and thc additionu rrlsir corrtinuation of- disputc in hctrvccrr pcnding. bclirre thc IIon'blc arhitrator 1,. Ircctls to be considercrl and c\amincd Lr. inclrrdirrg rcgardine ntaintainabilitr ol' sar,l cllrirns irr accordance riith larr. Ilcrrcc tt rirtsrr erctl accordingly. "

a. 'firer-cfirre. considering that the al.bitration pr ) :our t t'ee ls lrc rnatter l thcrc is ( xiu)l ine d Ig rcc nrcn t 'la inrs arc le llal tics rrir l lrc ic thc lla t t,\' rJd ition,rl point is e cd ings \\ cl'e alLcadl pendirl{r. and rhe lact that afl trre disputes are to r. acriucricated b'tlre arbitrat.r. the atlditional claims rvere rcl'err.ed tt, lrc erbitrator. Thc Ref'e'cnce (l.urt also considered that thc additior* r clairns raised b' thc- Ilcspor-rclc,t are in relatio, to the contir-ruing di,,1 utes betq,ecn thc parties. l-ikcri isc. the maintainability and entir , rrc.1 oI rhe additional clainrs u,as left fbr the arbitr-ator to dccide. I 3. ,\grirst llrc .cfere.cc of atrditional crai,rs t, hc .rbitrator., the corporati.n hrs rlled the present civir Re'isiorr )otirion. rhe ('ontentior.ts ol'the ('or-poration are as lbllows:

I

I lll O.S. No. 545 of 1989 r'r'as clecleed by appointing an arbitrator. Thc samc attaincd finatit,v' The Referencc Coutt afler thc allpointmcnt o I thc arbitrator becomes .fitnctus o.fficio. Therclbrc- adclitionaL clairns, atier a lapse of 07 years, could not havc bect-t ret'erred to arbitration by the Reference Coutt. Once the main case is disposcd ot. no partl'can reopen the proceedings b-"- fiting rnisce Ilaueotts applications' Rcliancc was placecl or thc lrrinciple laid dotvn b1 Lhc Apex Court in Ajay Kum:tr 'lain r'' State of U'P'2 The additional clairns sought to be adjudicated b1' the arbitrator are ve[v retnote and arc barred by limitation The said claims do not relate to tire arbitration agreemet-It and are non-albitrable. Reliance was placed on the principle [aid doq'n by the Apex Court in Union of lndia v. Raunaq lnternational Ltd'-] ' 2024 SCC Onl-ine SC i677 I izooe; tz scc 323 I

ll l 1l The additional clain'rs are lresh claims. '[- I :rclbre, fl esh 1V lhc proceedirrgs befbre the arbitrator wer. i t thc stag: of argurxents. At such a belated stage, aclor ionill claims could not havc been ref-erred to the arbitrar-(,r procccclinus have to be initiated by issuinl. r notice. The lrbitlator cannol adjr-rdicate additional cLair: s in pencling proceed ings

14. In his rcplr'. thc Respondent supported the tlrr_l ngs rendered in the rrnpugnccl orcler aucl contended as lollorvs l-he aclditiotral clairr-rs relate to the loss o business on accorrnt o1'delay attlibutable to the Corpor r ion. 'fhe said claims are Lelated to the main claims rvhic r u,ere already relcrred to arbitration. Therefore, such claiir s could have bccn lef'erred to albitration. Reliance was I ,l rced on H.L. Batra and Co. v. State ofHaryanaa. Relying on Stnte of Goa v. Praveen ll r erprisess, ir n as c:onrencled that unless the arbitration c I use ret'crs to specifrc dispr-rtes, the parties are entitled Lc raise all the ' (rgeq) 9 st( r88 i (20 [) t2 s('(] .t8l lt. I

t2 disputes relation to t.he agreement. Furlher, such clajms / counter claims can be arnended. I5. At this stage, we rrould like to highlight thar t,hen rhe prescnt civil Revision Petition came fbr adrnissio.. the predecessor bencli which heard thc matter had sta) ed lhe a'bitration pr.oceedings vide orde r dated 22-12.201 i. The said stav operatcs titt datc. Furlher, vide order dated 11.04.2017, rhe intcrirn order dared 22.ll.l0ll u.as niade absolute and the fbllowing obsen,ations w,er.e made: "ln our, prinia tircic. opinion rvith the disposal o[. the suit, the Court helol has becomc firnctus olficicr and thcrefore, it could not havc rot'errcd additional claims for arbitration. Moreover, thc intcrirn orclcr was grantcd as far back as 22.12.2011_ IIencc. at this length of tirne, it is not dcsirable Lo \racat_c the said interirn ordcr as doing so r.i ould rendcr thc revision pctition itself infiuctuous. For the alorementioned reasons. C_R.p.M.l, No.8048 ol 2016 is disrnissod. Inrcrirn ordcr. darecl 22.12.201l. in C.R.P M.P.No.7972 of 2011 is madc absolutc. C.R.P.M.l,.No_ 1972 ol 201 l. accordingly. stands disposed ot."

16. We have heald the learncd Counsel appearing ibr thc parries at length. The question before us is q,hether the Rel'er.ence Court I

-) becornes fazc tus officio under the Act, 1940 after the aI cointment of an arbiLrator ancl rvhether such Refercnce Cou( could rave l'elerled the additional clainrs to arbitration after an arbitrato' rvas alreadv appointecl I 7. -[-o ansu c[ tllc above question, it is releva r to note the distinction betu,een the Albitlation Act. 1940 and thc . 'rbitration & Conciliation r\cL. 1996 fhereinafter "1996 Act"-. The latter incorporates the f'caturcs ol rninimurn judicial interlr ntion in the conduct ot' arbitral prcceeclings, r,n,hcre as the lormer- :ontentplatcs has bccn conlcrrecl u iLh varioLrs powers including the _. rrver- to reler condirct ol' lrrbitral pr-oceedings under the control and s qren ision of the Cour1. I 8. Llnder the Act ol 19.10, Section 2(c) define:' 'Cou(" as a civil court hav ine .lurisdiction to decide the questions ibnning thc subject mattel ol thc rcf-erence as if the same were the s rbjcct matter of a suit. ln other u orcls. for the ptrrposes of the Act of 940. "Court" means Lhe court u hich rvould have jurisdiction if a suit I rd been filed under the Code ol- ('ir il l)roccdr.rrc

19. l'he Court. as deflned under Section 2 (c) of rre 1940 r\ct, -l

1. + disputes an albitrator, appoir-rt an arbitrator, relrove the arbitrator, ctc. Under Section 20 olthe 1940 Act, pou,er has bcen conl.cred on the Courl to ret'er the disputes to arbitration ancl to appoint an ar.bitrator_.

20. l'he Court, undcr the 1940 Acr, reLains higher control orer. the arbitral proceedings and the post_arbitral proceedings. Once an arvard is passed by an arbitrator appointecl under the 1940 Act. tire same has to be signed and filed befbrc the Couft under Scction i-1. After fiting ol thc award, the Court shall issue noriccs ro rhe parliijs and Itcal objections on the awarcl. Under Sections l5 & 16. the C.our.t. alter hearing the parties, can conl-rrm the award. modify or correct the awald, remit the award, or set aside the award. If the awar.d is confirmed, the Courl shall pronounce a judgment in ternts of Lhc, awa.d. This judgement will be followed by a decr.ee. .fhis is envisased undcr Section 17 ofthe 1940 Act.

21. It is perlinent to note here lhat the term ..Court,, used in rnultiple provisions like Section 14, 15, 16, 11 , and 20 is deflncd undel Section 2 (c) ol the Act, 1940. Meaning thereby that, oncc an arbit.ator is appointed under Section 20 by the Court, an award has ro be frled by the arbitrator before the same cor-,1 and the.iudgrnent shalr be pronounced by the sarne Court. This indicates that the Refercncc I

Court, i.e., thc Court acting undcr Section 20 ol thc M0 z\ct retains control over the arbitr-al proccedings till the.judgemen. rnd decree are passcd ir-r tcms of Scction 17. Ttris means that the Re 'crcnce Courl, of li)89 and the sanre was confir'me d Lrv this CoLrrt r I 1t: order dated afier- appcrintinq iln arbitratol'. does not bccome.f nclus t lJicir..t

22. N-orv corniLrrl to the tacts of the case, it r.vas Ii vently argued on bchalf of the ('orporation that once Sli Justice T. F anga Rao rvas appointed as an arbitrator vlrle order datcd 08.1 1.2004 i O.S. No. 545 05,11.1007 in C.R.P. No ol 2005, the proccc lings attained finalit1,. Thc (ior-Por.tlion's argument is that thc Rt lcrence Courl becorres./Lrzcl tt.s o.ffit'io and could not have enterlained .A. No. 338 of 20 I I in C).S. r\-o. i4,5 ol' 1989

23. Wc disagree r.vith the argument advanced r,r behalf of the Corporation. As discussed sullra, the Reference (l ruft does not becorne .ftLnctus o,ffi t ict aftcr appointment of the arbii ,rtor. The said CoLrrt still rctains control to enterlain any "subseqr-r,: Lt applications arising out o1'that rcterence". [n this regard, Section ] of the 1940 Act may be ret'erred to. Sccriorr 3l (4) exprcssll. tates that the Relercnce (iru11 has.;Lirisdiction to cntertain subseqr_r: rt applications t arising out of the referencc. Fo. the sake o1'convenience. Section r r is extracted below ---l l. .lurisdiction:- ( l) Sub.iccr ro the provisions ol this Act. au au ar-d rnay be filed in an1, CouLt having jurisdiction in thc mattcr to rvlrich thc ref'crencc rclatcs.

(2) Notu ithstanding anything containcd in anr other la\\ ltrr the tinrc bcing in foroc ancl savc as othcrrr isc proi.idcd in this Act, all questions rcgarding thc validity.. eflecL or cxistence of an arvard or atr arhitration agree ment bc[r'i ccn thc parties to lhe aglecment o[ persons clairning under them shall be clecidcd by the Court iu u,hich the arvardcd under the agrcement has been, or may bc. tiled. and by no other Ctourl.

(i) AII applications rcgarding the conducr ol arbitration proceedings or otherwisc arising out ol such proccedings shall be rnade to the Court ivherc thc axard has becn. or rnav bc. filed- arrd to no other Court.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for thc time being in force, where in an]' reference anS.application under this Act has bcen made in a Court competent to entcrtain it, that Court alonc shall have jurisdiction ovcr the arbitration proceedings antl all I I i

tl subsequcnt applications arising out ( Court lrnd in no other Court.',

24. While the Corporation is correct in cort albitratol is bouncl bi the rci-cr.encc rnadc b1 the I uude-r Section l0 and the scope o1- the rct-erence ceLr r thc 1940 Act does not proscribe amcudrrent of clr ad-iud ication ol subsequent clairns. \Vhen the arbitrirl pending and if the partv t'eels that ancillarv clairns main claim, such partv rnay seek amcndment of their r include such a clailr. Needless to sa1,, that the princi; Rule 17 rvould apply to such cases.

25. Whilc an arnendrrent petition can be ent arbitrator himsell, it doe s not protribit thc party h.on i Refbrence Cor-rrt seekins re l'erence of additional r' subs r the albitrator. In tl-ris rcgard, it is apt to note that in Corporation t,td. (Supra), it was held: I' th at rnding that thc cf'erence Couft ot bc enlarged, nts or seeking rr-occedings are rise out of the Iairn petil.ion to es of Order VI rtained by the pproachir-rg the quent claims to )rissa Mining " l I . Section 20( l) of Lhc Arbirration Ac . l0 of 1940. provicles that u.herc a difl'erencc ha; rriscn and u herc anv persons have entcred I to an arbiLration aqreculcrlt rhe1. rnal appJl .) the court iraving j urisd iction iu the mattcr r c r hich the agrcclllent rclatcs. tllat [he agrccutcnl. r lilccl i ? ': : i t l8 in court. Sub-sectiou (4) to S. 20 provides that tlre court shall ordcr thc agr.cerncnt to bc filcd. and shall t.nake an orcler ol rcferencc to thc arbitralor rrppointed bv thc partics. ll/hen on ugreemenl is filed in court ond order of reference is nrude then the claim ns u result of llrc order oJ reference is limited to a particular relie.f anrl the urbitrutor L,annot enlarge the tcope of the referertce and enlertain Jreslt claims witltotrt u lirther orler of reference from the court On a construction of S. 20 ol thc .,\rbitration Act the plea on behalf of thc appcllant ri ill liar c to be acccpted."

26. As is evident fi'orn the above paragraph, fiesh claims can be cntedaillcd with a further order of reflel.ence. This, in oul. vic\\. est_ablishes that a party can appll.to the [{et'erence Court for a further. order to include additional and subseqnent claims. -lhe validity and entitlement of such claims is for the arbitr.ator to decide.

27. ln view of the above discr-rssion, we hold that the impugncd order is corect. -fhe unfbftunate delay in this case is regrettable. \\/c direct all the claims to be adjudicated by the learned arbitrator. Wc hope that the paflies cooperate and assist thc arbitrator in concludinq the arbitral proceedings at thc carliesr l i'

i l ! I { I j I I I I i

I9

28. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. r\ll tlie interim orders stand vacated, The parties shall bear their own , osts Conscquently. pending r.niscellaneous pctitic,t r, i1' any, in this revision slia Il stand closcd

29. When the present juclgrnent was pronounc: it rvas brought to or.rr notice bv tl-re learned Cor-rnsel 1t r that, due to old age, Justice T. Ranga Rao (Retd.) is rr the arbitraI proceedings. Therelorc, the leamcd I Respondent requestcd tl'ris Court to appoint a srrt,: replacing Justice T. Ranga Rao (Retd.). However, the for the Petitioners opposed the same and stated thal r by them a substitute arbitrator cannot be appointed.

30. As statcd above, thc suit fbr ref-erring ar.bitlation was filed in 1989. 'lill date the arbitral 1r been pending due to r.ro Iault o I the Respondent. Likr:.r Iin open court, the Respondent ablc to conduct ounsel for the litule arbitrator earncd Counsel a petition liled he disputes to ccccdings have rse, by virtue of I I j I I I i : i ii I I : I

r the order dated 22.12.201I passed by this Cour1, the arbitral )0 prooeedings were stayed. The stal' order opL-rates till date. It is trite law that an ac1 ol- the court shall pre.judice no one. l'his is embodicd in the I-atin maxim 'at:lLts c:ttiue nentinem grat,uhil'. Therefbrc. l remanding thc Respondcnt back to the Civil Court to seek hppointrnent of a substitute arbitlator will causc sclcre prejudice and will furlher detay the arbitlal pr.ocecdings. U U

31. Under Articlc I l5 ol thc Clonstitution ol India, [his Court is a "couft of record". A rtine .luclse Cor-rstitr-rtion Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Naresh Shridhar N'lirajkar v. State of Maharashtra6, has held that a "court ol record" is a superiol court and is not bounds by thc Iimits o l- .iurisdiction. In rppropriate cascs. where it is expedient and to do cornplete .iustice, this Court can exercise its plenary powcrs

32. ln tigtrt of the t'acts and circurlstanccs nartated abovc, we deem it appropliate to appoint Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao, Former Judge, Iligh Court of 'l'elangana, as the arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes referred to arbitration uirlc ordct dated 08.1 1.2004 in O.S. No. 545 of 1989 and order dated 05.12.201 1 in I.A. No. 338 of 201 I u 1t 9oe; 3 scR z+a

?,1 in O.S. No. 54i of 1989 passed by the learned VLh Scr i rr Civil Judge, City Clivil Court. Hyderabad. SD/- I I. OSMAN ALI BAIG A sl I I |, }FANT REGISTRAR I \ ,i Be"rtoru oFFtcER //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI Justice K' LAKSH ' lFor His LordshiP kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI Justice V' RAMAKRISHI'l' ' REDDY ' iFor His LordshiP kind Perusal) To, l The V Senior Civil Judge' City Civil Court, Hyde'r bad (with records, if anY)

2. 11 LR Copies

3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia tVlinistry of Law, Jtlr; ce and Company Affairs, New Delhi

4. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Librerrv High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabetr!

5. One CC to Sri R Anurag, SC for TGRTC IOPUC]

6. One CC to Sri Vivek Jain' Advocate [OPUC]

7. T.wo CD CoPies P]WPSL w Nj I l /

HIGH COURT DATED:0810112026 \*o ( itB 2025

ORDER

CRP.No.5671 of 2011 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETI"ION

-b I o ae. ?' g-\ $l1,1 STATE