APHq010194202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI H- 'F' 'o -ofi FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 16 OF 2025 Mi .A Between: M/s. Varam Civil Works, Rep. by its Prop. Ram Nitesh Jaldu, S/o. J.R.V. Subba Rao, 4th Floor, Uttara Elite, 15/551, Plot No. 11, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, SBI Road, Machilipatnam-521 002. ...Applicant AND Naraharisetty Sudhir Kumar, S/o. Sri Krishna Door No. 20,143-D, Srikrishna Nagar, Behind Zilla Praja Parishad, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ...Respondent Arbitration Application filed under Sub-Secs.(5&6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Para (3) (i) (c ) of the Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, 2006 as framed by High Court, Amaravathi praying that the High Court may be pleased to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the Applicant and the respondent based on the clause ‘n’contained in Memorandum of Understanding dated 19-10-2018. Counsel for the Applicant: Ms. Mallavolu Nikitha Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Yaswanth Gade The Court made the following order: i r ' IT APHC010194202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Bench Sr.No:-12 [3441] H- SI ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 16 of 2025 M/s. Varam Civil Works ...Applicant Vs. Naraharisetty Sudhir Kumar ...Respondent ********** Advocate for Applicant Advocate for Respondent Ms. Mallavolu Nikitha Mr. Yaswanth Gade CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR DATE : 19th September 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ: This is an application filed under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out and in connection with the Memorandum of Undertaking, dated 19.10.2018. upon 2. Disputes are stated to have arisen between the parties which, according to the petitioner, are required to be settled in terms of clause ‘n’ of the MOU, dated 19.10.2018, through the mechanism of arbitration. For purposes of reference, clause ‘n’ is reproduced hereunder: “n) Any disputes arise between the parties regarding the terms of the agreement, execution, it must be settled mutually or by way of HCJ A.A.No.l6of 2025 r an Arbitration, at Machilipatnam only and his Award is final and any of the parties should not approach the Court of Law. ” 3. According to the petitioner, notice, dated 29.03.2025, invoking arbitration clause was served upon the respondents, which was responded to by the non-applicant. In the reply notice, the stand taken was that the agreement between the parties had ceased to exist and that the MOD did not have any sanctity in law and further that the notice issued after lapse of 5 and 10 months from the date of the MOU did not carry any sanctity in law and that the transaction was barred by time. years 4. On perusing the material on record, it can be seen that there does exist a dispute between the parties which is required to be resolved through the mechanism of arbitration. The issues with regard to the limitation and the issue with regard to the sustainability of the claims made by the petitioner can be gone into by the arbitrator. 5. In Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh Vs. ASAP Fluids Pvt Ltd. and another^ the Apex Court held that the referral Court under Section 11 (6) of the Act, 1996, must conduct only limited enquiry for purposes of examining whether the application filed under Section 11 of the Act, 1996, has been filed within the period of limitation of three years or not, and that it would not be proper for the referral Court to indulge in any intricate enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the petitioner are time barred and further that such a determination must be left to the decision of the arbitrator. (2025) 1 see 502 3 i; HCJ A.A.No.16 of 2025 r 6. Be that as it may, the present application is allowed. Mr. G. Satya Prabhakara Rao, retired District Judge, is appointed as an Arbitrator, who shall enter upon the reference and adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of and in connection with the MOU, dated 19.10.2018, and render the Award within the statutory period. The parties shall be free to file detailed claims and counter-claims before the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to claim his fee in terms of the provisions of the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. No costs. Consequently, connected pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator on the address mentioned herein below: Mr. G. Satya Prabhakara Rao, District Judge (Retd.), Sector — 1, Plot No.9, Lotus Land Mark, Kedareswari Peta, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District - 520011, Cont. No. 77805 73776. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR V" //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1, Plot Mr. G. Satya Prabhal^ara Rao, District Judge (Retd.), Sector - Peta, Satyanarayanapuram, 1. No.9, Lotus Land Mark, Kedareswari Vijayawada, Krishna District — of Arbitration Application filed along with Arbitration Application) 520011, Cont. No. 77805 73776. (along Affidavit and all material with a copy papers 2. One CC to Ms. Mallavolu Nikitha Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Yaswanth Gade Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 4. The Section Officer, O.S Section, Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies Stu vna HIGH COURT DATED:19/09/2025 ORDER OF Al I 10 OCT 2025 , Current Section .% ARBAPPL NO. 16 OF 2025 mi# ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION