IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE T -o 3 o \o C> ft PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE lA NO: 2 OF 2024 in ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 87 OF 2012 Between: Kankatala Srinivasa Rao, s/o. Late Sri Venkateswara Rao, aged about 47 years, resident of Rajanagaram, East Godavari District .. .Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Kankatala Dhanalaxmi, W/o. Late Sri Subbarayudu, aged about 62 years, resident of Rajanagaram, East Godavari District 2. Kankatala Naga Durga Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Sri Subbarayudu, aged 37 years, resident of Rajanagaram, East Godavari District 3. Kankatala Veera Venkata Ramesh, S/o. Late Sri Subbarayudu, aged 32 years. Resident of Rajanagaram, East Godavari District 4. Kankatala Venkata Satya Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Sri Subbrayudu, aged 35 years. Resident of Rajanagaram, East Godavari District ...Respondents/Petitioners Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to clarify the order dated 15-04-2013 stating that the arbitrator so appointed shall be one among the arbitrary tribunal which is adjudicating the disputes between the parties to arbitration. Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent: Sri Y Srinivasa Murthy, Senior Counsel Counsel for the Respondents/Petitioners : Sri. Siva Rama Krishna Kolluru The Court made the following: The present application has been filed seeking clarification of the order dated 15.04.2013 passed in Arbitration Application No.87 of 2012. 2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: Disputes having arisen between the parties to Arbitration Application No.87 of 2012, the same were said to be resolved through an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three-members namely, Sri Madduri Siva Subba Rao, Sri Kurre Satyanarayana and Sri Marrisetti Rama Rao. An arbitral Award then came to be passed on 09.09.2002. One of the conditions and in particular Condition 11(c) in the Award was that if the highest bidder failed to pay the bid in regard to the properties mentioned therein, the same would be taken over by the arbitrators, who would deal with the matter afresh, according to their best judgment. The fact that the arbitrators were to deal with the matter afresh was also reiterated by the High Court vide common judgment and order dated 02.12.2009, passed in C.R.P. Nos.487, 547 of 2009. It is in that backdrop that the present Arbitration Application No.87 of 2012 came to be filed by Kankatala Dhanalaxmi and others, wherein it was alleged that even when the arbitrators had to adjudicate upon the matters pursuant to the application filed before them on 29.08.2010, there had been no response from the arbitrators. It was also asserted in the affidavit filed along with the arbitration application that one of the arbitrators namely Sri Kurre Satyanarayana had passed away on 13.03.2012, yet, again the applicants in paragraphs 13 and 14 stated thus: “13. It is submitted that the arbitral tribunal has not been taking any steps in the matter even after the Hon'ble High Court had passed the orders referred to above in CRP No. 547 of 2009 and the subsequent orders passed by the civil court in EP (SR) No. 9362 of 2010 and the Hon'ble High Court in CRP No. 1182 of 2011 despite a representation having been made to the arbitrators on 29-8- 2010. Therefore, even on the ground of delay, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal is liable to be terminated in view of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 14. The Respondents have been taking advantage of the delay on the part of the arbitral tribunal and have been placing hurdles to the effective adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the parties by filing numerous execution petitions before the civil courts. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicants are filing the present application for appointment of a sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. For the aforesaid reasons, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the Applicants and the Respondent in relation to the auction conditions in the arbitral award dated 9-9-2002 and pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. In the aforementioned backdrop, the learned single Judge this Court, by virtue of order dated 15.04.2013, disposed of the Arbitration Application No.87 of 2012, by observing as under: “Heard both sides and perused the petition contents. In view of the fact that there is an arbitrable dispute as contemplated under Arbitration Agreement and the earlier board of arbitrators could not complete the proceedings, both the parties are agreeable for appointment of Sri A. Sanjiva Rao, retired District Judge as an arbitrator, this Arbitration Application is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, Sri A. Sanjiva Rao, retired District Judge, is appointed as an Arbitrator and he shall be paid fee etc., as per the Indian Arbitration Council Rules. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed.” 4. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed seeking clarification of the order dated 15.04.2013. It is stated that the arbitrator appointed by the Court was assuming to himself the jurisdiction exclusively as a sole arbitrator, and that, in fact, it needs to be clarified that the Court appointed arbitrator, namely Sri A. Sanjiva Rao, by virtue of the order dated 15.04.2013, was only one of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal and not a sole arbitrator. It was in that context, also prayed that the proceedings before the Arbitrator be stayed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. On a perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 15.04.2013, as also on perusal of the averments made in the Arbitration Application No.87 of 2012, would make it clear that the intention of the Court while disposing of the Application was clearly to appoint a sole arbitrator, as was the prayer made in the arbitration application. The order came to be passed with the consent of the parties, as has been recorded by the learned single Judge in the said order. The Court also clearly recorded that the earlier Board of Arbitrators could not complete the proceedings and it was in that context that Sri A. Sanjiva Rao, a retired District Judge, came to be appointed as an Arbitrator. Whether or not a sole arbitrator could have been appointed when the parties had agreed to the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators is not for this Court to deal with at this stage in the clarification application. If at all, it would have been open to the applicant herein to challenge the order dated 15.04.2013. 7. In my opinion, there is no ambiguity in the order dated 15.04.2013, which would require any clarification. This interlocutory application is found to be misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTER //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Kankatala Dhanalaxmi, W/o. Late Sri Subbarayudu, aged about 62 years, resident of Rajanagaram, East Godavari District 2. Kankatala Naga Durga Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Sri Subbarayudu, aged 37 years, resident of Rajanagaram, East Godavari District 3. Kankatala Veera Venkata Ramesh, S/o. Late Sri Subbarayudu, aged 32 years, Resident of Rajanagaram, East Godavari District 4. Kankatala Venkata Satya Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Sri Subbrayudu, aged 35 years, Resident of Rajanagaram, East Godavari District 5. One CC to Sri. Siva Rama Krishna Kolluru, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. Y Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Three CD Copies Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED:21/05/2025 ORDER I.A No.2 of 2024 in ARBAPPL.No.87 of 2012 5 13 JUN 2025 ^ ^ . Curreni deciion DISMISSING THE I.A No.2 of 2024