IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT^/I^^^^'^ \0% s! 73 MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE o PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.82 of 2018 Between: Trinethra Superretail Private Limited, Presently Aditya Birla Retail / Limited, 685, Warehouse No.3, Gundia Pochampally (Post and Village), Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-500 014. ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Kurra Ashok Kumar, S/o. K. Balakrishna Rao, Aged 54 Occupation: Business, R/o.5/5, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam 530 017. years. .. .Respondent/Petitioner 2. Justice Sri. A. Gopal Rao, S/o. Late Bhujanga Rao, Aged about 80 years, R/o. Flat No.502, Sri Nivasam Apartment, Plot No. 134, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad 500 073. 3. Ghanta Rama Rao, Aged about 50 years. Senior Advocate, HIG-1, B-5, Flat No.9-12, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. 4. T. Surya Satish, Aged about 50 years, Occupation: Advocate, R/o. Plot No.56, Gruhalakshmi Colony, Kakaguda, Karkhana, Secundrabad- 500015. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 9.10.2017 in A.O.P.No.1391 of 2015 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate for the Appellant, of Sri S Rajan, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and / none appeared for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby disposed of; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER To 1. The VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. 2. Three CD Copies TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:17/03/2025 DECREE CMA.No.82 of 2018 ^ 0UPR2025 I Current Section . ^ DISPOSING OF THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.82 of 2018 Appeal under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 9.10.2017 in A.O.P.No.1391 of 2015 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: Trinethra Superretail Private Limited, Presently Aditya Birla Retail Limited, 685, Warehouse No.3, Gundia Pochampally (Post and Village), Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-500 014. ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. Kurra Ashok Kumar, S/o. K. Balakrishna Rao, Aged 54 years. Occupation: Business, R/o.5/5, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam 530 017. ... Respondent/Petitioner 2. Justice Sri. A. Gopal Rao, S/o. Late Bhujanga Rao, Aged about 80 years, R/o. Flat No.502, Sri Nivasam Apartment, Plot No.134, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad 500 073. % 3. Ghanta Rama Rao, Aged about 50 years, Senior Advocate, HIG-1, B-5, Flat No.9-12, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. 4. T. Surya Satish, Aged about 50 years. Occupation: Advocate, R/o. Plot No.56, Gruhalakshmi Colony, Kakaguda, Karkhana, Secundrabad- 500015. ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri S Rajan Counsel for Respondent nos.2 to 4: None Appeared The Court made the following: APHC011020512017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ [3525] ■ viV.-U MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 82/2018 Between: ...APPELLANT Trinethra Superretail Private Limited AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Kurra Ashok Kumar and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.S RAJAN The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) St out his premises in respondent herein had leased The 1 St respondent had sought Visakhapatnam to the appellant herein. The 1 eviction of the appellant along with payment of damages, on account of unauthorized use from 10.05.2010. As there was an arbitration clause in the lease agreement, the matter was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, consisting of three arbitrators. The claim of the 1®* respondent before the Aribtral Tribunal 2 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J C.M.A.No.82of2018 was for eviction of the appellant and for recovery of damages, from the appellant, from 10.05.2010, on the ground that the lease would terminate and subsequent occupation requires damages. One of the contentions raised in the arbitration, by the appellant, was that there were negotiations after a quit notice had been issued by the 1 respondent and these negotiations resulted in a fresh agreement, dated 09.07.2009 and consequently, it must be held that the quit notice, issued by the 1®‘ respondent, had been waived. 2. St 3. The 1 respondent contested this contention stating that subsequent agreement or subsequent payment of rent would not amount to waiver of the quit notice. The Aribtral Tribunal, by a majority of two arbitrators, held that there was waiver of the quit notice and rejected the claim petition of the 1®‘ respondent. The said award, dated 22.06.2015, was challenged before the Learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, by way of A.O.P.No.1391 of 2015. The Learned Trial Judge rejected the award and allowed the petition. 4. Aggrieved by this order, dated 09.10.2017, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 5. 6. It is now submitted that the appellant had vacated the premises thp year 2017 itself and handed over the premises to the 1®' respondent. in J 3 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J C.M.A.No.82 of 2018 Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the appellant 7. would submit that nothing further survives in the case, in as much as the premises had been handed over to the respondent. Sri S. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the 1®* respondent would contend that though a part of the relief sought by the 1^’ respondent has 8. been obtained, the fact remains that claim for damages, from 10.05.2010 till the premises were vacated in 2017, requires to be adjudicated. He would submit that, in such circumstances, the order of the Trial Court, which entitles the 1®* respondent to seek further arbitration, requires to be upheld. A perusal of the order of the Trial Court would show that the Trial 9. Court did not go into the question of damages and had decided the case only on waiver of the quit notice. It also appears that the Arbitral Tribunal also did St not go into the question of payment of damages as the claim of the 1 respondent, for damages would not arise only when there was a termination of the lease. In view of the fact that the question of damages has not yet been 10. decided, it would be appropriate to relegate the parties to a fresh arbitration, in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. It is 11. also represented that an application, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and 4 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J C.M.A.No.82of2018 Conciliation Act, 1996, has also been filed for appointment of an arbitrator. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, (with records) 2. One CC to Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S Rajan, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Three CD Copies TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:17/03/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE ^ 04 APR 2025 ^ Current Seetion CMA.No.82 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS