IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH 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 Nos.137 & 46 of 2013 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.137 of 2013 Between: Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Secretary Visakhapatnam - 530 035. ...Appellant/Respondent No.1 AND 1. Central Security Guards, Rep. by its Chief Executive Sri V.Sudhakar, aged 46 years, S/o. V.Sanjeeva Rao, D.No. 9-368, Police Quarters Road, Visalakshinagar, Visakhapatnam-530043. ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. Justice Sri S.Dasaratha Rama Reddy (Retd.), S/o. Subbarama Reddi, aged about 70 years. Plot No. 135, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad- 500073. ...Respondent/ Respondent No.2 Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, against the orders dated 7-9-2009 in A.O.P. No.97 of 2005 passed by the Hon’ble Court of the Principal District 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 Sri Pamidigantam Patanjali for Sri P Sri Ram, Advocate for the Appellant, and of Sri J Bhaskar Rao for Sri S f^^l^janeyulu. Advocate for Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respjlhdent No.2. V CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.46 of 201. Between: Central Security Guards, Rep. by its Chief Executive Sri V.Sudhakar S/o. Sri Sanjeeva Rao, aged 50 years, D.No. 9-368, Police Quarters Road, Visalakshinagar, Visakhapatnam-530043. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Secretary, Visakhapatnam - 530 035. 2. Justice Sri S. Dasaratha Ramireddy (Retd.), S/o. Subbarama Reddi, aged 74 years, R/o. Plot No. 135, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, aggrieved by the order dated 7-9-2009 passed in A.O.P. No.97 of 2005 by the Principal District 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 Rao for Sri V S R i for and none appeared for the in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J Bhaskar Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the Appellant, and of Sri Pamidigantam Patanjal Sri P Sri Ram, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeals be and are hereby dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in these appeals. Sd /- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR sec1t& officer 1. The Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Three CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To TK TF j», ■ -r HIGH COURT DATED:25/03/2025 COMMON DECREE CMA.Nos.137 & 46 of 2013 2 2 JUL 2025 sCapent SectjgitXiy o Co DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RA AND honourable dr justice K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.l.TT & 46 of 2ni.T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nn.1 a7 nf ■>n^ ■> AMARAVATI Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, against the orders dated 7-9-2009 in A.O.P. No.97 of 2005 passed by the Hon'ble Court of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam District. Visakhapatnam Between: Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam - 530 035. Rep. by its Secretary, ...Appellant/Respondent No.1 AND 1. Central Security Guards, Rep. by its Chief Executive aged 46 years, S/o. V.Sanjeeva Rao, D.No. Road, Visalakshinagar, Visakhapatnam-530043. Sri V.Sudhakar, 9-368, Police Quarters ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. Justice Sri S.Dasaratha Rama Reddy (Retd.), S/o. Subbarama Reddi, aged about 70 years. Plot No. 135, 500073. Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad- ...Respondent/ Respondent No.2 : SRI PAMIDIGANTAM PATHANJALI FOR SRI P SRI RAM Counsel for Respondent No.1: SRI J BHASKARA RAO ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Appellant FOR SRI V S R Counsel for Respondent No.2: None Appeared aVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No 4fi of 9n>i7 ,f■ . ^ ^ Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, against the order dated 07-09-2009 passed in A.O.P. No.97 of 2005 by the Principal Distrrct Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: Central Security Guards, Rep. by its Chief Executive S/o. Sri Sanjeeva Rao, aged 50 Road, Visalakshinagar, Visakhapatnam-530043. Sri V.Sudhakar, years, D.No. 9-368, Police Quarters ■..Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Secretary, Visakhapatnam - 530 035. 2. Justice Sri S. Dasaratha Ramireddy (Retd.) , S/o. Subbarama Reddi aged 74 years. R/o. Plot No. 135, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/ Respondents : SRI J BHASKARA RAO FOR SRI V S R ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for Respondent No.1: SRI PAMIDIGANTAM PATHANJALI FOR SRI P SRI RAM Counsel for Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER V' , 'b APHC010012842013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] VO-TP TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH 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: 137/2013 Between: ...APPELLANT Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Visakhapatnam. AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Centrla Security Guards Vsp And Another and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.P SRI RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VS R ANJANEYALU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 46/2013 Between: ...APPELLANT Central Security Guards, Visakhapatnam AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Visakhapatnam Another and Others T 2 I Counsel for the Appellant; 1.VS R ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.P SRI RAM The Court made the following common Order: (perHon-ble Sn justice R.RagHunandan Rao) As both these appeals arise out of the same Award, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. The parties are being referred to as they were arrayed in the I arbitration proceedings. The claimant and the respondent in the arbitration proceedings had entered into an agreement for supply of security guards and sweepers in the establishment of the respondent. This contract was initially for a period of one year, but was extended up to 31.07.1999. According to the respondent, this contract was on the basis of a written agreement dated 09.08.1997, whereas the claimant contends that there was a subsequent agreement dated 3. 08.10.1997. Thereafter, certain disputes arose between the parties, in relation to the amounts payable to the claimant and the claimant sought arbitration for resolution of those disputes. 4. 5. It appears that the dispute resolution clause, in the agreement of August, 1997 only stated that all disputes should be referred to the Chairman %\ 3 of the respondent in the Arbitration. However, the dispute resolution clause the agreement of 08.10.1997 stipulated that disputes would be referred to the Chairman, who could then refer the same to Arbitration. in 6. Upon a request made by the claimant, the Chairman of the Respondent had referred the matter to arbitration and nominated a retired Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh as the Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator after hearing both sides had held that the agreement of 08.10.1997 is a fabricated document. However, the learned Arbitrator had awarded certain amounts to the claimant and rejected the remaining claimants. Aggrieved by the Award of the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner had filed A.O.P.No.97 of 2005 before the Principal District Judge at Visakhapatnam. The Principal District Judge, accepting the finding of the learned Arbitrator that the agreement dated 08.10.1997 is a fabrication, had held that no arbitral proceedings could have been conducted inasmuch as the 7. agreement of August, 1997 does not contain an arbitration clause. The Principal District Judge, after having found that there was no arbitration agreement, had allowed A.O.P.No.97 of 2005, dated 07.09.2009, by setting aside the Award of Arbitration dated 05.10.2004. 8. Aggrieved by the said Order, both the claimant as well as the respondent have filed above appeals before this Court. 4 In I Sri Pamidigantam Pathanjali. learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the arbitration, contends that the question of whether the agreement dated 08.10.1997 is invalid or not would not arise as the arbitration account of the consensus between the parties that the disputes should be referred to arbitration. He would submit that, in such circumstances, the question of whether the arbitration was initiated on the basis of written agreement or whether it was done by consent of both parties would be irrelevant. The learned counsel would also submit that the amounts awarded under the Award dated 05.10.2004 have already been paid and nothing 9. was on further remains in the case. Sri J.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the claimant 10. would contend that the arbitration would have to commence again as the Award has been set aside. Section 7 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 reads as 11. follows: 7. Arbitration agreement.—(1) In this Part, “arbitration agreement” means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. (2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. (3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing. (4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in— 5 (a) a document signed by the parties; (b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication (including communication through electronic means) which provide a record of the agreement; or (c) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other. (5) The reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract. The requirement of Section 7 is that there should be an agreement, in writing, for reference of any dispute to Arbitration. 12. In the present case, the agreement of August 1997 did not contain an arbitration clause. It only requires the Chairman of the respondent to decide the dispute. The agreement of 08.10.1997 contained an arbitration clause. However, this agreement has been disbelieved and both the arbitrators had found that the said agreement is a fabrication. This finding 13. was accepted by the trial Court. In such circumstances, the finding of the trial Court that the learned Arbitrator did not have any jurisdiction inasmuch as the reference to arbitration itself was without any basis would have to be upheld. 14. In the circumstances, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall 15. be no order as to costs. 6 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd /- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r \ SECTION OFFICER (with records'^fTnyV^^^^’ Visakhapatnam District. One CC to Sri P Sri Ram, Advocate One CC to Sri V S R Anjaneyulu, Advocate Three CD Copies To 1. 2. [OPUC] 3. [OPUC] 4. 5. TK TF HIGH COURT DATED;25/03/2025 COMMON ORDER + DECREE CMA.Nos.137 & 46 of 2013 DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALS