Sri. N. Venkat Ram

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE

CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 9 th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT: SRI N. VENKAT RAM

JUDGE, ADDL. SPL. COURT IN THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE

FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT

HYDERABAD

COP No. 31 of 2025

BETWEEN:

M/s. Tubo Food Packaging Industries (P) Ltd., (Now known as Tubo Organized Wholesale Private Limited.) Rep by its Authorized Representative, Siddharth Kothari (DIN No.09680788)

Having it’s Principal place of business at 12-5-124/1/Nr, Flat No.301, SSK Kandaris, Moosapet Village, Balanagar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana – 500 018 Email ID : siddharth@kdap.in

...Petitioner

AND

1. M/s. Pronto Properties, Having their registered office at House No.19-4-340/34/57/1, Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad – 500064 Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Swamy Santosh and Partner Sri. Kanishk Gupta, Also having its Office at 497, Karwan Sahu Road, Langar Houz, Hyderabad – 500 008 Email ID: kanishkguptagroup@gmail.com

2. M/s. Charminar Food, Having its Office at 497, Karwan Sahu Road, Langar Houz, Hyderabad – 500 008, Rep by its Partners Sri Kanishk Gupta & Sri Ronak Gupta, Email ID: kanishk1103@ yahoo.com

...Respondents

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 2 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

This COP is coming before me for final hearing on 22-01-2026 in the presence the presence of Sri B. Vamshidhar Reddy, (M/s. Chandrasen Law Officers) Counsel for the Petitioner and of Sri D. Vijaya Chandra Reddy, Counsel for the Respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

: : O R D E R : :

1. This Commercial Original petition filed under Section 9 of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 praying for interim measure directing the respondents to furnish security for a sum of

Rs. 2,23,56,952/-.

2.The case of the petitioner in brief is that:

a) The second respondent is the owner of 47757 sq.yds in plot

No. 11 to 15 in Sy No. 860 (p) and 861(p) situated at Industrial

Development area Patancheru. Mr. Kanishk Gupta represented the petitioner that he and his brother Mr. Ronak gupta are the partners of the second respondent firm. Further represented that Mr. Kanishk

Gupta and his wife are 50% partners in the first respondent firm. The second respondent leased out the said property to the first respondent through un-registered lease deed dt. 01.09.2023.

b) Mr. Kanishk Gupta had assured that the property is having all requisite permissions to run the petitioner’s business smoothly.

Basing on such assurances the petitioner entered into a tripartite

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 3 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

sub-lease deed dt 1.11.2023 with first respondent and second respondent with respect to area admeasuring 39,000 sqft, herein after referred to petition schedule property. The agreed monthly rent is Rs. 9,50,000/- and the petitioner took the possession of the petition schedule property. However the registration authorities have refused to register the sub-lease deed as the principal lease deed is an unregistered one. However Mr. Kanishk Gupta assured the petitioner to get both lease deeds would be registered. Basing on such request the petitioner agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 7,50,000/- till registration.

c)Later the petitioner received a call and subsequently a legal notice from Mr. Ronak Gupta by demanding to vacate the petition schedule property and threatened to sue the petitioner for trespass.

The petitioner realized that the pincode number of petition schedule property and the pincode number reflecting on purchase orders are different. Then the petitioner has verified the documents provided by Mr. Kanishk Gupta and discovered that the sub-lease deed was entered with respect to plot no. 11-15 but the documents are pertaining to plot No. 20 owned by the second respondent in the same locality.

d)The petitioner has applied for change of address, but the GST authorities refused the same on the ground that no electricity bills provided for petition schedule property. The respondents assured an

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 4 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

to provide a separate meter for the petition schedule premises. The petitioner has verified the sanction letter with the Industrial

Development Area Local Authority(IALA) and found that no permission was issued relating to plot No. 11-15 and the said permission is pertaining to plot No. 20. Mr. Kanishk Gupta intentionally deceived the petitioner company with an intention to cheat the petitioner and for unlawful gain. In the month of July 2024

Mr. Kanishk Gupta sent some of his men and break the locks of ware house and replace the locks in the petition schedule property and forcefully take away the possession and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences

e).the petitioner has received a legal notice dt 02.07.2024 from

Mr. Ronak Gupta and demanded to pay a sum of Rs. 39,89,164/- towards damages and to vacate the petition schedule premises and the petitioner a gave a reply notice dt. 17.-07.2024. Mr. Kanishk

Gupta and Mr. Ronak Gupta are brothers are colluded together and acting with the sole intention for unlawful gain from petitioner.

f).The petitioner has invested a sum of Rs. 2,23,56,952 including security deposit of Rs. 28,50,000/- . the petitioner is forced to find a new place and incur the cost of establishing the business all over again and thereby the petitioner put to great deal of financial and mental stress. The petitioner has issued a legal notice dt. 25.07.2024 to the respondents calling upon to pay a sum of Rs. 1,90,00,000/-

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 5 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

towards damages and security deposit of Rs. 28,50,000/- . the respondents did not respond. The respondents are trying to lease out the petition schedule property to third parties without settling the accounts with the petitioner. In order to defeat the rights of the petitioner the respondents further alienate their properties and my result irreparable loss and injury.

3. THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS IN BRIEF:

a).On behalf of respondents, the first respondent filed counter and second respondent adopted the counter of first respondent. The first respondent denied the allegations levelled against them. Further submitted that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

b). It is submitted that the petitioner approached the first respondent for rent of the premises. The second respondent leased out the premises to the first respondent by executing an unregistered lease deed dt. 01.09.2023 and there was no bar to sub lease the premises.

At the time of sub lease the respondent has clearly clarified that the premises on plot No. 11to 15 has no approval from Industrial Area

Local Authority and premises has no separate electricity connection and the power will be supplied from plot No. 20 by installing a separate sub-meters. It is submitted that the petitioner is well aware the first respondent has no registered lease deed in its favor, but the petitioner requested for registration and at the instance of the

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 6 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

petitioner this respondent and Kanishk Gupta submitted the lease deed dt.1.11.2023 for registration however, the authorities refused to register the lease deed as the original lease deed was not registered. Later this respondent filed writ petition against joint Sub

Registrar-2 Patancheru challenging the refusal and the same pending on the file of Hon’ble High Court. It is submitted that the petitioner requested to pay a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- until the registration is completed and he didn’t opt for license agreement, as such he is estopped from alleging that there was a misrepresentation. Later this respondent has issued a notice

dt. 1.04.2024 invoking arbitration clause to Mr. Ronak Gupta under

clause 35 of lease deed dt.01.09.2023, however the said Ronak Gupta unlawfully interfered with the possession of the first respondent. The first respondent filed COP No. 171 of 2024 on the file of

Prl. Commercial Court, at Hyderabad and the same is pending for adjudication. It is further submitted that the recitals of sub lease deed clearly stated that lease deed dt. 01.09.2023 is an unregistered one. The interference of Ronak Gupta is partly true and already invoked arbitration clause for specific performance of lease deed. It is submitted that the plot no. 20 is located in Sy. No. 439(p) and 440(p) and the petition schedule property is situated in Sy No. 860 and 861 and there is no possibility of mistaken identity of properties.

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 7 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

c).The lease deed dt. 01.09.2023 and sub lease deed dt. 1.11.2023 are unregistered and insufficiently stamped, therefore, they are not admissible for any purpose much less to claim damages. Therefore, the petitioner would not get any relief before arbitral tribunal. Hence the petitioner has not made out prima facie case for claiming damages and further has no balance of convenience. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Synopsis of arguments filed on behalf of respondent. Perused the record.

5. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

POINT:

6.Before proceeding to address the controversy between the parties, this court considered to note the undisputed facts arising out of the pleading of both parties. The said undisputed facts are as follows.

i).Respondent No.1 entered into a lease deed dt. 01.09.2023 with respondent No.2 with respect to petition schedule property and later the petitioner entered into a sub-lease deed dt 01.11.2023 with respondent no.1 and second respondent joined as consenting party.

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 8 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

ii).The original lease deed and sub-lease deed are un-registered and the registering officer, Patancheru refused to register the sub lease deed as the principle lease deed is an un-registered one.

iii).The petition schedule property has no power connection and also doesn’t have permissions from Industrial Area Development authority.

iv).A legal notice dt. 02.07.2024 was issued on behalf of Mr. Ronak

Gupta by demanding the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule property and reply notice dt. 17.07.2024 was issued on behalf of petitioner.

v).The petitioner has issued a legal notice dt. 25.07.2024 calling upon the respondents to pay damages.

7.It is relevant to note that the jurisdiction of this court while exercising powers under section 9 is very limited. Court has to see that the subject matter has to be preserved and in the event of passing any award by the arbitral tribunal wouldn’t rendered as unenforceable. Further it is also relevant to note that while dealing with applications under section 9, it is not desirable to dwell upon serious question of facts and law which required to be examined by the arbitral tribunal after conducting inquiry. The court has to see good prima facie case, balance of convenience for granting interim relief under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(Essar House (P) Ltd Vs Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd). An

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 9 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

applicant who comes to the court for relief in time-sensitive matters cannot be drawn and quartered by being relegated to the strangle hold of order XXXVIII Rule 5. It would indeed absurd to hold the applicant to satisfactory evidence that the opposite party will fritter the substance of the arbitration away before court steps in to salvage the situation. (Prathyusha- AMR JV Vs Orissa Steel Expressways

Private Limited1).

8.In the light of aforesaid undisputed facts and legal propositions, this court carefully perused the contentions and submissions of learned counsel for both parties. The controversy between the parties is that the respondents have mis-represented the petitioner about statutory permissions, usage of industrial land, non registration of parent lease deed and sharing documents pertaining to different property and thereby induced the petitioner to enter into sub lease and to invest substantial amounts. On the other hand it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was fully aware about non-registration of lease deed dt 01.09.2023 and the petitioner also aware about lack of separate power connection. Further respondents’ case is that the petitioner was well aware about identity of petition schedule property and plot No. 20, still he entered into sub lease deed with respondents. Finally submitted that the fault is attributable to the petitioner only.

1. 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3107.

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 10 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

9.The controversy involves several disputed facts. But the fact remains that the petitioner had entered into lease deed with the respondent No.1 who has lease hold rights in it’s favor through an unregistered lease deed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the sub lease deed clearly indicates about non- registration of parent lease deed. A question would arose whether such unregistered lease deed can be looked into at this stage. The respondents putforth a contention that the lease deed and sub lease deed are unregistered and insufficiently stamped, therefore, they are not admissible for any purpose. No doubt, section 35 of Stamp Act and Section 49 of Registration Act bars to admit such documents in evidence. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interplay Between

Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, 1has held that at the stage of Section 9 proceedings “issues which concern the payment of Stamp duty fall within the remit of the Arbitral Tribunal. The discussion in the preceding segments also make it evident that the courts are not required to deal with the issue of stamping at the stage of granting interim measures under Section 9”. Therefore, rigor of these provisions would not come in the way in this proceedings.

1. (2024) 6 SCC 1 : 2023 SCC Online SC 1666

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 11 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

10.Coming back to the contention of respondents, on perusal of the sub-lease deed, it shows the principal lease deed is an unregistered one. However, rival contentions like representation of respondents at the time of entering into the lease deed about identity of petition schedule property, power connection and permissions from Industrial Area Development Authority are arbitral issues and arbitral tribunal would decide after trial.

11.Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that leasing of immovable property without IADA permissions would amount an act forbidden by law, hence the sub-lease deed has become void and unenforceable and also impossible to perform such act. Further submits that the same is attributable to the respondents, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for restitution and compensation in terms of section 65 of Indian Contract Act. He relied on the following decisions:

G T Girish Vs. Y. Subba Raju1

Union of India Vs. Col. L.S.N. Murthy2

Loop Telecom & Trading Ltd Vs. Union of India3

1. (2022) 12 SCC 321

2. (2012) 1 SCC 718

3. (2022) 6 SCC 762

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 12 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

12.On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that the respondents never misrepresented or induced the petitioner and the petitioner voluntarily entered into the lease deed and despite 30 months lock in period abruptly vacated the premises and the petitioner is the sole responsible as such not entitled for any restitution and compensation.

13.This court carefully perused the rival contentions. The pleadings of respective parties shows that the petitioner has vacated the premises and the petition schedule property is in the possession and control of respondents. The contentions also reveal elements that constitute frustration of contract, like lack of permission from

IADA and refusal of change of address by the GST authorities. There is no disagreement on the principle for entitlement of restitution and compensation under section 65 of Indian Contract Act as held by the

Hon’ble Supreme court in the above referred decisions. However,

for determining such component, initially it has to see whether the petitioner is less responsible than the respondents and later the quantum of damages depending on the material available on record.

14.This court herein above opined that the disputes are arbitral issues. Therefore, till adjudication of those controversies by the arbitral tribunal, prima facie it is very difficult to conclude that the

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 13 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

petitioner is less responsible and on the quantum of un-ascertained damages especially in the light of the sub lease deed contained a reference to non registration of principal lease deed and also about power connection.

15.Furthermore, the relief is to direct the respondents to furnish security for a sum of Rs2,23,56,952/-. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that un-liquidated damages can not give rise to debt unless liability adjudicated by a competent court, therefore when claim is not a debt as such furnishing security doesn’t arise. He relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Union of

India Vs Raman Iron foundry 1 and a decision of Delhi High Court

DMCC Vs CL Iron & Steel Ltd 2.

16.On the other hand learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the jurisdiction under 9 of A&C Act being preventive and equitable and the court is required to assess the likelihood of frustration of the arbitral award and not insist on rigid evidentiary rules under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court was rendered in peculiar facts of the said case. He relied on the following decisions.

1. (1974) 2 SCC 231

2. 2025 SCC Online Del 4652

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 14 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

1) Esar House (P) Lid. v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd 1

2) Sadbhav Engineering Limited Vs Efftech Infra Engineers 2

3) Prathyusha-AMR JV v. Orissa Steel Expressway (P) Ltd. 3 17.a) From the above decisions it can conclude that powers conferred under Section 9 is wide and intended to preserve the subject matter of arbitration and absence of strict compliance of

Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC cannot by itself defeat the claim.

However the Hon’ble Delh High Court took a view for strict compliance in the facts of the said case. But the Hon’ble Supreme court, Hon’ble High Courts of Gujarat and Calcutta had taken a consistent view that the court should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments incorporating the grounds for attachment before Judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC.

b)The present case the petitioner is claiming security in respect of unliquidated damages. The Hon’ble Supreme court in Raman

Iron foundry’s case held that unliquidated damages can not be qualified to a debt and it has to be determined by the competent court. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

1. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1219

2. 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 4362

3. 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3107

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 15 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

“a claim for unliquidated damages does not give rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated and damages assessed by a decree or order of a court or other adjudicatory authority. When there is a breach of contract, the party who commits the breach does not eoinstanti incur any pecuniary obligation, nor does the party complaining of the breach becomes entitled to a debt due from the other party. The only right which the party aggrieved by the breach of the contract has is the right to sue for damages.”

18.In the light of settled principle, the petitioner can entitle for damages only upon determination by the arbitral tribunal.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s contention is that the respondents are trying to lease out the property to third parties without settling the accounts with the petitioner. This contention doesn’t indicate any permanent disposal of schedule property by the respondents, therefore in the considered opinion of this court and it is not sufficient to direct the respondents for furnishing security.

In view of aforesaid discussion and the reasons, it reveals serious factual disputes related to sub lease deed dt 01.11.2023 and fault attributable to the parties. Further, the petitioner’s claim for restitution and compensation are unliquidated damages, yet to be determined and quantified by the arbitral tribunal. Finally the allegations are limited to attempt to lease out the petition schedule

C.O.P.NO. 31 of 2025 16 of 16 DT:09-03-2026

property but not otherwise disposal of the property. Therefore, this court do not find good prima facie case, balance of convenience in favor of petitioner and irreparable loss cause to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered against the petitioner and infavor of respondents.

In the result, the petition is dismissed. Both parties are directed to bear their own cost.

Typed to my Dictation, Corrected and Pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 9 th day of March, 2026.

JUDGE,

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

...NIL...

JUDGE,

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE

CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 16 th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT: SRI N. VENKAT RAM

JUDGE, ADDL. SPL. COURT IN THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE

FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT

HYDERABAD

COP No. 07 of 2021

BETWEEN:

1. South Central Railway, Hyderabad Division, Represented by its Divisional Engineer/ Divisional Railway Manager (WORKS), Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad E-mail ID: courtcaseshybdiv@gmail.com

2. Union of India, Represented by Principal Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001

E-mail ID: courtcasehybdiv@gmail.com ...Petitioners

AND

1. M/s Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, having its registered office at the Safe Legend, 6-3-1239/B/111, Renuka Enclave, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082. Represented by its authorized signatory, Sri L. Gowrishankar, S/o L.H. Prasada Rao, Email:allamsrinivas@patilgroup.com

2. Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy (Retd), Sole Arbitrator, Plot No.22-A, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034 Email ID: cvno6@yahoo.co.in

...Respondents

This COP is coming before me for final hearing on 24.12.2025 in the presence the presence of Sri K. Surya Narayana, Counsel for the Petitioners and of Sri Ch. Pushyam Kiran, Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and of Respondent No.2 Sole Arbitrator and shaving stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 2 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

: : O R D E R : :

1. This Commercial Original petition filed under Section 34 of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 with a prayer to set as side the arbitral award dt. 15.10.2020 in respect of petitioner’s counter claim and to allow the said counter claim.

2.The necessary facts required for disposal of this case:

a) The first petitioner entered into a contract for supply of concrete mono block sleepers with Mysore Structural Pvt Ltd on 15.01.2009. Later the respondent No.1 entered into a triparte agreement with Mysore Structural Pvt Ltd and first petitioner on 27.01.2010. The first respondent and the first petitioner entered into supply agreements for supply of mono block sleepers dt. 25.03.2009, 27.11.2013, 26.12.2016 and September 2019.

b) As per clause 21 of supply agreement dt 25.03.2009 the respondent has to set up a factory close to the railway siding. The first petitioner had granted license in favor of respondent to use land an extent of 40356.50 sq.mtrs situated at Wadiyaram Railway station yard and accordingly a license agreement was entered into with effect from 26.12.2007. The license fee was fixed as Rs. 11,28,412/- per annum with an annual escalation of 7%. The said fee can be enhanced in terms of clause 2(i) of license agreement by giving a six

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 3 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

months notice in advance of the due date of such revision and the respondent’s unconditional acceptance.

c)The first petitioner had issued an advance notice by letter dt 21.02.2016 to the first respondent to clear the pending bills and to renew the license agreement and later on 03.07.2017 another letter addressed informing to submit the license agreement duly signed by the competent authority. A joint inspection of the land in possession of respondent was conducted by a three member committee for revising the license fee basing on the land rates issued by the Sub

Registrar, Ramayampet and the same informed to the respondent and it’s Dy. General manager acknowledged the said communication.

d)The first petitioner raised a provisional bill for a sum of

Rs.67,85,965/- for the years 26.12.2011 to 31.03.2018 and later issued a revised bill dt 23.06.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,21,36,618/-..

e). The first respondent disputed the same and invoked arbitration clause. Hon’ble High Court appointed sole arbitrator in

AA No. 53 of 2018 vide order dt. 25.05.2009 to adjudicate the dispute arising out of license agreement dt 25.05.2009.

f).Upon considering the claim statement of first respondent, statement of defence of petitioners and counter claim the learned arbitrator settled five issues, read as follows:

1. Whether the Hon’ble Sole Arbitrator has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims/disputes of the Claimant in the absence of the Arbitration Clause in the Licence Agreement ?

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 4 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

2. Whether the claims/disputes made by the Claimant are maintainable either in law or on facts?

3.Whether the action of the Respondents in enhancing/revising the Licence Fee with effect from 26.12.2007 to 31.03.2018 is legal and valid?

4. Whether the Respondents are entitled to claims/disputes made in the Counter Claim Statement?

5. Which party is entitled to costs and to what extent?

g).During the course of inquiry on behalf of first respondent/claimant marked Ex.C1 to Ex.C42 and on behalf of petitioners/ Respondents Ex.R1 to Ex.R24 were marked.

h).After conclusion of Inquiry and upon hearing both sides, the learned arbitrator passed the impugned award on 15.10.2020 by disallowing the petitioners’ counter claim for an amount of Rs.

1,21,36,618/- and difference of enhanced license fee of Rs. 15,74,935 (for the period 1.04.2018 to 31.03.2019) and Rs. 16,85,180/- ( for the period 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020). Further also disallowed the claim for liquidated damages on the enhanced license fee for a sum of Rs.

32,60,115/- for the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2020

3.Aggrieved by the rejection of counter claim, the petitioners challenged the impugned award on the following grounds:

•The learned arbitrator has not followed the procedure laid down under A&C act and acted in-contravention to Section 28(2) of said act and the award was not typed on stamp paper.

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 5 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

•The learned arbitrator without looking into pleadings and documentary evidence passed the impugned award by disallowing the counter claim which is contrary to law and opposed to the public policy of India and fundamental principles of Indian law.

•The arbitrator is the creature of contract, it is his duty to enforce the terms but decided the disputes not according to the legal rights of the parties and ignored the law and misapplied the same and acted arbitrarily, irrationally, capriciously and independently of contract and came to erroneous conclusions and there is an error apparent on the face of the award and suffers from patent illegality •The award is against the terms of contract and the arbitrator acted beyond the purview of the conditions of the license agreement.

4.Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Written arguments filed on behalf of both sides. Perused the record.

5. Point for consideration:

Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to set a side the arbitral award dt. 15.10.2020 in respect of petitioner’s counter claim?

POINT:

6.Before proceeding to address the point, it is relevant to note that Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act enables the aggrieved to make an application to set aside the award and this provision enumerated the grounds for seeking set aside the award.

The Hon’ble supreme court in the following decisions explained the

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 6 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

scope of Section 34 and laid down the principles to be followed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34. Both counsel have cited these decisions.

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs Saw Pipes Ltd 1 ,

Associated Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority 2 , Ssangyong

Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd Vs. National Highways

Authority of India 3 , MMTC Ltd Vs. Vedanta Ltd 4 , Sikkim Subba

Associates Vs State of Sikkim 5 and Food Corporation of India Vs

Chandu Construction and another 6.

The principles laid down in the above decisions are summarized hereunder:

•Patent illegality must go to the root of the matter and any illegality is of a trivial in nature can not be held that award is against public policy.

•Re-appreciation of evidence cannot be permitted under the ground of patent illegality.

•Contravention of A&C act and not assigning reasons would amount to patent illegality

1. (2003) 5 SCC 705

2. (2015) 3 SCC 49

3. (2019) 15 SC 131

4. (2019) 4 SCC 163

5. 2001 (5) SCC 629

6. 2007 (2) Arb. LR.74 (SC)

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 7 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

•Arbitrator must decide in accordance with terms of contract.

• Construction of the terms of contract is primarily for the arbitrator and such construction reasonable and it cannot be ground to set a side the award unless such construction is no reasonable or fair minded person could do.

•Arbitral award cannot be interfered if the view taken by the arbitrator is a possible view.

•Arbitrator authority derives from the contract any deliberate departure from contract amounts to not only manifest disregard to the authority or misconduct on his part, but it may tantamount to a malafide action.

In the light of scope of Section 34 of Arbitration and

Conciliation Act and the aforementioned principles, this court proceed to address the point.

7.a) The petitioner challenged the award on the ground that the learned arbitrator did not follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of A&C act and in contravention of section 28 of said act and also general conditions of Contract. Further, the learned arbitrator rejected petitioner’s claim by traveling beyond the terms of license agreement and adjudicated the matter beyond the terms of agreement and the impugned award is opposed to public policy of

India. On the other hand the respondent No.1’s case is that the learned arbitrator has considered the material on record and rightly

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 8 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

arrived to conclusion by constructing clause 2(i) of license agreement by taking into consideration of Railway Board Master circular and rejected the petitioner’s counter claim. Further it is the case of the respondent that the award is not suffers from any patent illegality and not against public policy of India.

b)This court has given it’s thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for respective parties. The dispute arose when the petitioner has revised the license fee retrospectively with effect from 26.12.2007. The petitioner’s case is that as per clause 2(i) of Ex.C8 license agreement the petitioner is competent to revise license fee with retrospectively, further case is that this clause and revision is in accordance with paras 3,5 & 7 of Ex.C7 Railway

Board Master circular. The parties are not in dispute about this clause and the circular. For better understanding the clause 2(i) is extracted hereunder:

Clause 2(i): The Government shall have the right to review the rate of Licence Fee periodically and enhance the same, if it considers necessary. The Licensees will be given six months notice in advance of the due date of such revision and their un- conditional acceptance obtained to pay the revised License fee from that date. Even in cases the revised License Fee is fixed on a subsequent date, it shall be recoverable with retrospective effect from the date of revision that was due. If the Licensees fail to give their unconditional acceptance, thereof as required by a notice, they shall vacate the premises before the currency of the Agreement expires.

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 9 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

8.On careful perusal of this clause, it envisages a six month’s advance notice of due date of revision of license fee to be given by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 and it’s unconditional acceptance. Further it also envisages that the petitioner can recover the enhanced license fee fixed on subsequent date with retrospective effect from the date of enhancement. It is also provides that in the event of failure of respondent to give unconditional acceptance the respondent No.1 shall vacate the premises before expiry of the agreement.

9.It is relevant to mention that the Ex C7, master circular provides the procedure for determination of market value. It says that in the case of existing leases the market value as on 01.01.1985 has to be taken into consideration, further it says that the period from 1.04.1986 to 31.03.2004 a 10% of increase over the previous year’s land value. Whereas it is @ 7% for the period from 01.04.2004. It is also provides that in case of fresh leases that is from 10.02.2005 it has to be fixed after obtaining current market value of the land, in case it is not possible then updated cost based on 1.01.1985.

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 10 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

10.Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has revised the land price basing on the Ex.R17 land rates provided by the Sub-Registrar, Ramayampet and accordingly revised the land prices with effect from 2007 onward and further submitted that as per clause 2(i), the petitioner has a right to revise the value retrospectively and the respondent has knowledge about the revision which is evident from Ex.R10. On the other hand the learned counsel

for respondent submitted that the petitioner cannot revise the

license fee by taking random value.

11.It is evident from Ex.C26 that the petitioner has advised the respondent to remit a sum of Rs. 67,85,965/- and later through

Ex.C27 the bill raised under Ex.C26 was withdrawn and a fresh bill for a sum of Rs. 1,21,36,618/- was issued and where under shown as last date for payment without penalty as 22.07.20217. In pursuance to said demand the respondent through Ex.C28 made a representation stating that the fixation is highly arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines stipulated by the Railway Board. However, the petitioner has rejected the request through Ex. C29.

12.Upon careful perusal of Ex.C7 and Ex.C8, no doubt the petitioner is competent to revise the lease rates as per the procedure prescribed by the license agreement and Master circular

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 11 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

instructions. The petitioner to revise the license fee for the entire lease period commencing from 26.12.2007 had taken the prevailing market value from the Sub-Registrar, Ramayampet. It appears the petitioner at the time of license has considered the updated cost based on 01.01.1985, which is in consonance with 5.3 of Master circular. But nowhere the petitioner has not been able to explain to undertake for revision after 10 years retrospectively. This aspect has been considered by the learned arbitrator at para 17 of the award and held that:

“the respondents were however silent as to the reason for their embarking on taking the land prices afresh in respect of a concluded lease almost 10 years. It is not their pleaded case that while determining the land value for arriving at the license fee at Rs. 11,28,412/- in Ex.C8 agreement, a mistake or fraud has occurred.”

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Patil Rail Infrastructure

Pvt Ltd Vs Union Of India1 in similar circumstances held that, “Accordingly, the demand for recovery based on random market value without reference to any proportional increase referable to 01.01.1985 is, to the mind of this court, de hors the policy and therefore lacking in legal credibility.” 1.WP 9931 (w) of 2019

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 12 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

13.On careful perusal of the award, the learned arbitrator from para 15 to 18 of the award referred the clause 2(i) and master circular and elaborately considered and further relying on the above referred Calcutta High Court’s decision held that the petitioner is failed to justify the action of retrospective revision of the land value.

14.It is furthermore to note that for revision of land value, clause 2(i) of Ex.C8 mandates a six month’s notice in advance of the due date and unconditional acceptance by the respondent No.1. In the case on hand no such notice was issued to the respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the railway authorities have conducted a joint inspection along with representative of the respondent No.1 and which is evident from

Ex.R9. On careful perusal of Ex.R9, it indicates only about conducting of joint inspection and at any rate it would not meet the requirement under clause 2(i) of Ex.C8 advance notice and as well as unconditional acceptance by the respondent No1.

15.In identical clauses, The Hon’ble Division Bench of Kerala High

Court in Veera Raghava Iyer and Co Vs. Divisional Superintendent,

South Central Railway and Ors1 held that the clause 5(e) does not enable the Railway administration to unilaterally revise the license

1. 2002(2) KLJ 17

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 13 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

fee and compel the licensee to accept such unilateral fixation of revised license fee. Clause 5(e) is pari materia with clause 2 (i) of

Ex.C8.

16.The learned arbitrator at para 21 of the award has considered this aspect elaborately and by relying on the above referred decision held that Ex.R7, R8, R9 and R24 would not constitute advance notice within the meaning of clause 2(i) of Ex.C8.

17.Furthermore, though it may not be necessary in view of petitioner’s failure to prove valid advance notice and as well as justification to undertake for revision after 10 years retrospectively, the learned arbitrator in detailed consider the “due date”, “subsequent date” and “the date of revision that was due” and held that, “ the right to recover revised license fee retrospectively shall in no case extend to the period prior to the due date which shall be expiry of six months after the issue of advance notice of revision. Any other construction would do violence to the specific phraseology of clause 2(i).”

This reasoning and construction of clause 2(i), in the considered opinion of this court is reasonable and falls within the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction and do not see any error, so far as to

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 14 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

the contention that award was not engrossed on Stamp, is baseless.

The award was properly stamped. Hence, this ground is ignored.

18.Upon careful perusal of the impugned award, this court do not find any patent illegality in the analysis of evidence on record and the conclusions arrived thereon by the learned arbitrator.

Furthermore, the impugned award is based on sound legal principles and in-accordance with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the above referred decisions and rightly relied on the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta and Kerala High Court.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner put-forth a ground that impugned award contradicts the license agreement and Section 28 of

A&C Act, but failed to justify with cogent and convincing material.

Therefore, the impugned award can not be held to be contrary to the public policy and fundamental policy of India law. Hence this court held that the petitioner is failed to establish grounds to set a side the impugned award to the extent of counter claim. Accordingly this point is answered against petitioner and in favor of respondent No.1.

C.O.P.NO. 07 of 2021 15 of 15 DT: 16-03-2026

In the result, the petition is dismissed with cost.

Typed to my Dictation, Corrected and Pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 16 th day of March, 2026.

JUDGE,

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

...NIL...

JUDGE,

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE

OF DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT: SRI N. VENKAT RAM

JUDGE, ADDL. SPL. COURT IN THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE

FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT

HYDERABAD

COP No.77 of 2025

BETWEEN:

M/s. Mitsubishi Elevator India Pvt. Ltd., A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at Plot No.59-63 & 65-71, KIADB, Shingehalli Village, Vemagal Industrial Area, Vemagal, Kolar Taluk & District, Karnataka- 563 102

Having its branch office at 5-4-94 to 97, Lala 1, Landmark, 4th Floor, 402, MG Road, Ranigunj, Secunderabad- 500003 Rep by its Authorized Representative Mr. Harinarasimha Reddy Tippasani

...Petitioner

AND

M/s. Laxmi Infobahn Private Limited, H.No.8-2-682, Laxmi Cyber Centre, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500034 Represented by is Authorized Representative, Mr. Karthik Yadavalli

...Respondent

This COP coming on this day before me for final hearing on 20.01.2026 in the presence of Ms. King Stubb & Kasiva, Counsel

for the Petitioner and of Sri M. Naga Deepak, Counsel for

Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court made the following:-

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 2 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

: : O R D E R : :

1.This Commercial Original petition is filed Under Section 29A(5) and Section 29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 praying to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for passing of the award.

2.a.The petitioner is the respondent/Counter-Claimant in the

Arbitration proceedings before the Learned Sole Arbitrator late

Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (Retd) vide Arbitration Case No.1 of 2019. The respondent is the claimant in the said arbitration case.

The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of passenger service and industrial lifts. The respondent is engaged in the business of construction and development of real estate and infrastructure projects. The respondent is also a sister concern of GAR Corporation

Private Limited and same is developing a project names Laxmi

Infobahn-Sez in Kokapet, Telangana and expressed its interest to engage the petitioner’s services for installation of lifts in the said project. After multiple negotiations, the petitioner submitted technical and commercial offer letter dated 21.02.2017 and in turn

GAR Corp issued Letter of Intent dated 28.02.2017 for supply of 48

Nos. customized elevators for the project. Through letter dated

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 3 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

27.03.2017 laid down the detailed terms and conditions governing the supply and installation of the elevators and issued Purchase

Order dated 30.03.2017. Later the GAR Corp had further amended

Purchase Order on two occasions dated 06.07.2017 and 28.10.2017 to modify certain specifications. The Purchase Order was succeeded by two different work orders dated 28.12.2017 for supply, installation and handling over of 23 Nos. Mitsubishi brand Elevators for Tower No.1 and 2 and work order dated 04.01.2018 for supply and installation and handling over of 17 Nos Mitsubishi brand elevators for Tower No.3 and 4.

b.Later the respondent failed in performing their part of obligations under the purchase order and the work order and further failed to provide a hindrance free site and failed to comply with the other obligations to enable the petitioner to execute the works in a timely manner. Further the respondent unduly taking advantage of their own delay and failure terminated the purchase order and work order by way of letter dated 03.01.2019. Since the disputes were not resolved amicably the respondent has issued notice invoking

Arbitration dated 06.03.2019 and further got an ad-interim order restraining the petitioner from sending letters and e-mails to the respondent in COP No.23 of 2019 on file of Commercial Court , City

Civil Court.

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 4 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

c.The petitioner issued notice dated 19.03.2019 by nominating

Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator and the respondent consented for the said appointment through its

Advocate’s letter dated 01.04.2019. The Learned Arbitrator entered into the reference and conducted the first procedural hearing on 29.06.2019 and the pleadings were concluded on 10.12.2021.

However, there was delay in conclusion of proceedings and the petitioner herein filed Arbitration Application No.214 of 2023 on the file of Hon’ble High Court seeking extension of mandate for conclusion of arbitration proceedings.

d.However, the learned Arbitrator fixed the proceedings for hearing and directed the parties to file written statements and on 20.05.2024 the learned arbitrator sent a mail and wherein he stated that a second 29A application needs to be filed. But through communication dated 29.06.2024 the learned arbitrator recused himself from the Arbitration proceedings through Order dated 29.06.2024.

e.In pursuant to said recusal of learned arbitrator the petitioner examined the recourse available under law and made attempts to communicate with respondent to take appropriate steps, meanwhile the petitioner learnt that the learned Sole Arbitrator, Justice M.

Jagannadha Rao (Retd) passed away on 25.11.2024. Later the petitioner has issued a letter dated 04.03.2025 to the respondent

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 5 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

proposing the name of Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar as

Arbitrator and the respondent consented for substituted Arbitrator by way of reply dated 03.04.2025. In view of expiry of mandate of arbitral tribunal, the petitioner constrained to file the present application for extension of mandate of Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and prayed to allow the petition for extension of mandate of the tribunal.

3.a.The respondent has filed the counter affidavit wherein he denied the allegations leveled against the respondent. The respondent did not deny the constitution of tribunal, proceedings took place before the Arbitral tribunal and extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal for a period of six months by the Hon’ble High

Court. Further the respondent also stated about recusal of arbitrator on 29.06.2024 and consent of respondent for appointment of

Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar as a Arbitrator without

prejudice to the contention that the proceedings stood terminated and by the time period of the proceedings stood extinguished.

b.The respondent submitted that the present petition is not maintainable either on facts or on law. The petitioner has no where explained the delay in approaching the court and the same cannot be condoned. The present petition is hopelessly barred by time and deserves to be dismissed without further enquiry.

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 6 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

c.The petitioner was not deligent in pursuance of arbitral proceedings right after expiry of mandate dated 29.06.2024 due to the recusal of the learned arbitrator and the petitioner ought to have taken steps in appointing substitute arbitrator immediately and simultaneously should have filed further application seeking further extension of time. But the petitioner only after lapse of nearly nine months from the date of such expiry has taken a step for appointment of substitute arbitrator and preferred to file this application nearly after 10 months. The conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates that the petitioner is not deligent in pursuing the arbitration proceedings. The action of the petitioner frustrate the object of Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but also fails the speedy disposal of the case, hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.a.The petitioner has filed rejoinder where he denied the allegations leveled against the petitioner and further submitted that the petitioner was continuously and actively pursuing its remedies and promptly acted upon the arbitrator recusal. The petitioner in exercise of its statutory right issued its letter dated 04.03.2025 appointing Sri Hon’ble Justice C. Praveen Kumar (Retd.) as substitute arbitrator. The delay was solely due to supervening circumstances namely the sudden and unexpected recusal of the

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 7 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

Arbitrator, coupled with the need to approach the court for extension of mandate. It is further submitted , Section 29A(5) of the Act expressly empowers this court to extend time even after expiry of original mandate thereby curing any intervening period. The petitioner diligently pursued the arbitration proceedings before the sole arbitrator, filed written submission and made oral submissions.

The proceedings could not be concluded due to the reasons beyond the petitioner’s control, including unfortunate passing of sole

Learned Arbitrator on 25.11.2024.

b.It is submitted that the delay was attributable to the respondent, inasmuch as, they were irregular in attending arbitral proceedings and sought multiple adjournments for filing the necessary pleadings to deplete the mandate period. The present petition has been filed bonafidely to ensure completion of the arbitration.

5.Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Written submissions filed on behalf of both sides. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner could able to make out the grounds for extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal as prayed for?

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 8 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

POINT:

7. a) Before addressing the point, a question arise before this court that in view of earlier extension of mandate by the Hon’ble

High Court, whether this court can entertain this application. Both counsel have submitted that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act conferred power on Civil Court to exercise power under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and further submitted by virtue of

The Commercial Courts Act 2015 such power vested in Commercial

Courts. In a recent decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court Jagdish

Chowkley vs. Seema Chowkley1 has addressed this issue in view of conflict decisions on the power of Civil Court in extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme court in this decision held that the power vested only with the Principal Civil Court in extension of mandate and even on substitution of Arbitrator also. In view of this authoritative pronouncement this court is competent to deal with the petition under Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

8.Before proceeding to address the point , it is relevant to note the events occurred in the proceedings.

a. Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (Retd.) Judge was nominated by the petitioner as Sole Arbitrator through notice dated 19.03.2019 and the respondent through letter dated 01.04.2019 consented for appointment of Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (Retd.) Judge to resolve the disputes between the parties.

1. 2026 SCC Online SC 124

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 9 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

b. The first procedure hearing was taken place on 29.06.2019, the pleadings were concluded and issues were settled on 12.02.2020.

On 12.01.2024 the Hon’ble High Court extended the mandate of

Arbitral Tribunal for a period of six months. On 29.06.2024 the learned arbitrator has recused himself from arbitration proceedings.

On 25.11.2024 the learned arbitrator Hon’ble Sri Justice M.

Jagannadha Rao passed away.

c. The petitioner has issued letter dated 04.03.2024 to the respondent proposing the name of Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen

Kumar as Arbitrator to reconstitute the tribunal and the respondent through reply dated 03.05.2025 consented to the appointment of

Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar.

9.It is not in dispute that the Hon’ble High Court extended the mandate of the Tribunal through order dated 12.01.2024 for a period of six months and also recusal of learned Arbitrator on 29.06.2024. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had diligently pursued the options for continuation of

Arbitral Tribunal for resolving the disputes and addressed a letter to the respondent on 04.03.2025 for appointment of substitute arbitrator and respondent also consented for said substitute arbitrator. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing

for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has lack of

bonafides and it took nearly nine months for appointment of

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 10 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

substituted arbitrator and also took nearly 10 months for filing this application and sufficient cause is not explained as mandate under

Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This court has carefully examined the submissions made by the respective counsel.

The application was indeed filed almost 10 months after the arbitrator’s recusal.

10.The contention of the petitioner is that, due to supervening circumstances that is sudden and unexpected recusal of Arbitrator which is not in the control of the petitioner delay was caused.

Further also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner bonafidely and actively pursued to remedies.

11. On careful perusal of the proceedings before the learned arbitrator it appears that the pleadings were concluded and oral hearings were also completed and written submissions were filed and it is coming for further written submissions of the parties. At that stage, the learned sole Arbitrator recused from the very proceedings. The case of the petitioner is that the complex of questions were involved, as such the delay was caused in conclusion of proceedings.

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 11 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

12.There is no doubt substantial delay occurred in the proceedings. Complex questions in the subject matter and Covid outbreak contributed to it. The mandate was also extended by the

Hon’ble High Court, and before expiry of such mandate extended the

learned Arbitrator recused from the proceedings before it’s expiry.

13.The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent submitted that while extending the mandate under Section 29A the court has to examine the sufficient cause from the date of cause of action to the date of filing of the application and the petitioner has failed to explain the sufficient cause. Both the parties have relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered between Rohan

Builder (India) Private Limited vs. Berger Paints India Limited1 further the respondent has also relied on Basavaraj and others vs.

The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer2 in addition to Rohan Builder (India) Private Limited case, the petitioner relied on the decision

Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd, vs. General Manager and others3 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in Tricolor Hotels

Limited and others vs. Dinesh Jain and Others.4

1. 2024 SCC Online SC 2494

2. Manu/SC/0850/2013

3. Manu/SC/1239/2024

4. Manu/DE/4377/2022

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 12 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

The Hon’ble Supreme court in Rohan Builders case held that “the power of the court to extend the time is to be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient cause for such extension. Such extension is not granted mechanically on filing of the application. The judicial discretion of the court in terms of the enactment acts as a deterrent against any party abusing the process of law or espousing a frivolous or vexatious application. Further, the court can impose terms and conditions while granting an extension. Delay, even on the part of the arbitral tribunal, is not countenanced. The first proviso to Section 29A(4) permits a fee reduction of up to five percent for each month of delay attributable to the arbitral tribunal”. In Basavaraj and others caseit was held that “the law on the issue can be summarised to that effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay”. In Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd it was held that “the meaning of ‘sufficient cause’ for extending the time to make an award must take colour from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process. The primary objective in rendering an arbitral award is to resolve disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism as contracted by the parties. Therefore, ‘sufficient cause’ should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution”.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Tricolor Hotels Limited case relating to prior to amendment of Section 29-A.

14.a. On careful perusal of the decisions cited herein above the

Hon’ble Apex court held that the party who found to be negligent

and not acted diligently or remain inactive and it is not justified to

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 13 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

condone the delay and sufficient cause has to be seen in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution. In the present case, the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal is at fag end. Further the parties herein are mutually agreed on the substituted Arbitrator. It cannot be ignored the circumstances of sudden recusal and unfortunate demise of said Arbitrator. It is the contention of the petitioner that supervening circumstances took time to explore the alternatives for continuation of tribunal. This court taking into consideration these circumstances is of the opinion that the petitioner bonafides cannot be doubted in making this application and particularly in the context of fag end of Arbitral proceedings.

Therefore it is very difficult to brand this petition as vexatious in nature. This court is of the opinion that the circumstances as submitted by the petitioner is adequate to meet the sufficient cause.

b.The Hon’ble Supreme court in Basavaraj and others vs. The

Spl. Land Acquisition Officer held that sufficient cause lacks means that the party should not act in an negligent manner and there is a want of bonafide on its part. In the context of fag end of proceedings and the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner has not acted diligently or remained inactive.

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 14 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

c.In the case on hand, circumstances like recusal and the unfortunate demise of sole arbitrator contributed to the delay, making it hard to doubt the petitioner’s bonafides or diligence.

Furthermore, the Arbitral proceedings are at final stage.

15.In view of the above discussion and the reasons assigned thereon, despite the delay close to 10 months in filing of this application, the petitioner could able to show its bonafides in seeking extension of mandate of arbitral Tribunal. For these reasons this court held that the petitioner could able to make out the grounds for extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal.

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Hon’ble Sri Justice C.

Praveen Kumar (Retd. High Court Judge), is extended for a period of 6 months from the date of this order, for completing the Arbitral proceedings and for publishing the award in respect of the dispute between the parties.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her,

Corrected and Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 2 nd day of March, 2026.

JUDGE,

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

C.O.P.NO.77 OF 2025 15 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

...NIL...

JUDGE,

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE

OF DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT: SRI N. VENKAT RAM

JUDGE, ADDL. SPL. COURT IN THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE

FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT

HYDERABAD

COP No.78 of 2025

BETWEEN:

M/s. Mitsubishi Elevator India Pvt. Ltd., A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at Plot No.59-63 & 65-71, KIADB, Shingehalli Village, Vemagal Industrial Area, Vemagal, Kolar Taluk & District, Karnataka- 563 102

Having its branch office at 5-4-94 to 97, Lala 1, Landmark, 4th Floor, 402, MG Road, Ranigunj, Secunderabad- 500003 Rep by its Authorized Representative Mr. Harinarasimha Reddy Tippasani

...Petitioner

AND

M/s. GAR & Son Builders LLP, H.No.8-2-682, Laxmi Cyber Centre, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500034 Represented by is Authorized Representative, Mr. Karthik Yadavalli

...Respondent

This COP coming on this day before me for final hearing on 20.01.2026 in the presence of Ms. King Stubb & Kasiva, Counsel

for the Petitioner and of Sri M. Naga Deepak, Counsel for

Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court made the following:-

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 2 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

: : O R D E R : :

1.This Commercial Original petition is filed Under Section 29A(5) and Section 29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 praying to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for passing of the award.

2.a.The petitioner is the respondent/Counter-Claimant in the

Arbitration proceedings before the Learned Sole Arbitrator late

Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (Retd) vide Arbitration Case No.2 of 2019. The respondent is the claimant in the said arbitration case.

The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of passenger service and industrial lifts. The respondent is engaged in the business of construction and development of real estate and infrastructure projects. The respondent is also a sister concern of GAR Corporation

Private Limited and same is developing a project names Laxmi

Infobahn-SEZ in Kokapet, Telangana and expressed its interest to engage the petitioner’s services for installation of lifts in the said project. After multiple negotiations, the petitioner submitted technical and commercial offer letter dated 21.02.2017 and in turn

GAR Corp issued Letter of Intent dated 28.02.2017 for supply of 48

Nos. customized elevators for the project. Through letter dated

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 3 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

27.03.2017 laid down the detailed terms and conditions governing the supply and installation of the elevators and issued Purchase

Order dated 30.03.2017. Later the GAR Corp had further amended

Purchase Order on two occasions dated 06.07.2017 and 28.10.2017 to modify certain specifications. The Purchase Order was succeeded by two different work orders dated 28.12.2017 for supply, installation and handling over of 23 Nos. Mitsubishi brand Elevators for Tower No.1 and 2 and work order dated 04.01.2018 for supply and installation and handling over of 17 Nos Mitsubishi brand elevators for Tower No.3 and 4.

b.Later the respondent failed in performing their part of obligations under the purchase order and the work order and further failed to provide a hindrance free site and failed to comply with the other obligations to enable the petitioner to execute the works in a timely manner. Further the respondent unduly taking advantage of their own delay and failure terminated the purchase order and work order by way of letter dated 03.01.2019. Since the disputes were not resolved amicably the respondent has issued notice invoking

Arbitration dated 06.03.2019 and further got an ad-interim order restraining the petitioner from sending letters and e-mails to the respondent in COP No.24 of 2019 on file of Commercial Court , City

Civil Court, Hyderabad.

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 4 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

c.The petitioner issued notice dated 19.03.2019 by nominating

Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator and the respondent consented for the said appointment through its

Advocate’s letter dated 01.04.2019. The Learned Arbitrator entered into the reference and conducted the first procedural hearing on 29.06.2019 and the pleadings were concluded on 10.12.2021.

However, there was delay in conclusion of proceedings and the petitioner herein filed Arbitration Application No.214 of 2023 on the file of Hon’ble High Court seeking extension of mandate for conclusion of arbitration proceedings.

d.The learned Arbitrator fixed the date of hearing and directed to submit rejoinder arguments. On 20.05.2024 the learned arbitrator sent a mail and wherein he stated that a second 29A application needs to be filed. But through communication dated 29.06.2024 the learned arbitrator recused himself from the Arbitration proceedings through Order dated 29.06.2024.

e.In pursuant to said recusal of learned arbitrator the petitioner examined the recourse available under law and made attempts to communicate with respondent to take appropriate steps, meanwhile the petitioner learnt that the learned Sole Arbitrator, Justice M.

Jagannadha Rao (Retd) passed away on 25.11.2024. Later the petitioner has issued a letter dated 04.03.2025 to the respondent proposing the name of Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar as

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 5 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

Arbitrator and the respondent consented for substituted Arbitrator by way of reply dated 03.04.2025. In view of expiry of mandate of arbitral tribunal, the petitioner constrained to file the present application for extension of mandate of Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and prayed to allow the petition for extension of mandate of the tribunal.

3.a.The respondent has filed the counter affidavit wherein he denied the allegations leveled against the respondent. The respondent did not deny the constitution of tribunal, proceedings took place before the Arbitral tribunal and extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal for a period of six months by the Hon’ble High

Court. Further the respondent also stated about recusal of arbitrator on29.06.2024 and consent of respondent for appointment of Hon’ble

Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar as a Arbitrator without prejudice to the contention that the proceedings stood terminated and by the time period of the proceedings stood extinguished.

b.The respondent submitted that the present petition is not maintainable either on facts or on law. The petitioner has no where explained the delay in approaching the court and the same cannot be condoned. The present petition is hopelessly barred by time and deserves to be dismissed without further enquiry.

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 6 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

c.The petitioner was not diligent in pursuance of arbitral proceedings right after expiry of mandate dated 29.06.2024 due to the recusal of the learned arbitrator and the petitioner ought to have taken steps in appointing substitute arbitrator immediately and simultaneously should have filed further application seeking further extension of time. But the petitioner only after lapse of nearly nine months from the date of such expiry has taken a step for appointment of substitute arbitrator and preferred to file this application nearly after 10 months. The conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates that the petitioner is not diligent in pursuing the arbitration proceedings. The action of the petitioner frustrate the object of Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but also fails the speedy disposal of the case, hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.a.The petitioner has filed rejoinder where he denied the allegations leveled against the petitioner and further submitted that the petitioner was continuously and actively pursuing its remedies and promptly acted upon the arbitrator recusal. The petitioner in exercise of its statutory right issued its letter dated 04.03.2025 appointing Sri Hon’ble Justice C. Praveen Kumar (Retd.) as substitute arbitrator. The delay was solely due to supervening circumstances namely the sudden and unexpected recusal of the

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 7 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

Arbitrator, coupled with the need to approach the court for extension of mandate. It is further submitted , Section 29A(5) of the Act expressly empowers this court to extend time even after expiry of original mandate thereby curing any intervening period. The petitioner diligently pursued the arbitration proceedings before the sole arbitrator, filed written submission and made oral submissions.

The proceedings could not be concluded due to the reasons beyond the petitioner’s control, including unfortunate passing of sole

Learned Arbitrator on 25.11.2024.

b.It is submitted that the delay was attributable to the respondent, inasmuch as, they were irregular in attending arbitral proceedings and sought multiple adjournments for filing the necessary pleadings to deplete the mandate period. The present petition has been filed bonafidely to ensure completion of the arbitration.

5.Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Written submissions filed on behalf of both sides. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner could able to make out the grounds for extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal as prayed for?

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 8 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

POINT:

7. a). Before addressing the point, a question arise before this court that in view of earlier extension of mandate by the Hon’ble High

Court, whether this court can entertain this application. Both counsel have submitted that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act conferred power on Civil Court to exercise power under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and further submitted by virtue of

The Commercial Courts Act 2015 such power vested in Commercial

Courts. In a recent decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court Jagdish

Chowkley vs. Seema Chowkley1 has addressed this issue in view of conflict decisions on the power of Civil Court in extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme court in this decision held that the power vested only with the Principal Civil Court in extension of mandate and even on substitution of Arbitrator also. In view of this authoritative pronouncement this court is competent to deal with the petition under Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

8.Before proceeding to address the point , it is relevant to note the events occurred in the proceedings. a. Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (Retd.) Judge was nominated by the petitioner as Sole Arbitrator through notice dated 19.03.2019 and the respondent through letter dated 01.04.2019 consented for appointment of Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (Retd.) Judge to resolve the disputes between the parties.

1. 2026 SCC Online SC 124

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 9 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

b. The first procedure hearing was taken place on 29.06.2019, the pleadings were concluded and issues were settled on 12.02.2020.

On 12.01.2024 the Hon’ble High Court extended the mandate of

Arbitral Tribunal for a period of six months. On 29.06.2024 the learned arbitrator has recused himself from arbitration proceedings.

On 25.11.2024 the learned arbitrator Hon’ble Sri Justice M.

Jagannadha Rao passed away.

c. The petitioner has issued letter dated 04.03.2024 to the respondent proposing the name of Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen

Kumar as Arbitrator to reconstitute the tribunal and the respondent through reply dated 03.05.2025 consented to the appointment of Sri

Justice C. Praveen Kumar.

9.It is not in dispute that the Hon’ble High Court extended the mandate of the Tribunal through order dated 12.01.2024 for a period of six months and also recusal of learned Arbitrator on 29.06.2024.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had diligently pursued the options for continuation of Arbitral Tribunal for resolving the disputes and addressed a letter to the respondent on 04.03.2025 for appointment of substitute arbitrator and respondent also consented for said substitute arbitrator. On the other hand , the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has lack of bonafides and it took nearly

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 10 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

nine months for appointment of substituted arbitrator and also took nearly 10 months for filing this application and sufficient cause is not explained as mandate under Section 29A of Arbitration and

Conciliation Act. This court has carefully examined the submissions made by the respective counsel. The application was indeed filed almost 10 months after the arbitrator’s recusal.

10.The contention of the petitioner is that, due to supervening circumstances that is sudden and unexpected recusal of Arbitrator which is not in the control of the petitioner delay was caused.

Further also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner bonafidely and actively pursued to remedies.

11. On careful perusal of the proceedings before the learned arbitrator it appears that the pleadings were concluded and oral hearings were also completed and written submissions were filed and it is coming for rejoinder arguments of the parties. At that stage, the learned sole Arbitrator recused from the proceedings. The case of the petitioner is that the complex questions were involved, as such the delay was caused in conclusion of proceedings.

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 11 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

12.There is no doubt substantial delay occurred in the proceedings. Complex questions in the subject matter and Covid outbreak contributed to it. The mandate was also extended by the

Hon’ble High Court, and before expiry of such mandate extended the

learned Arbitrator recused from the proceedings before it’s expiry.

13.The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent submitted that while extending the mandate under Section 29A the court has to examine the sufficient cause from the date of cause of action to the date of filing of the application and the petitioner has failed to explain the sufficient cause. Both the parties have relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered between Rohan

Builder (India) Private Limited vs. Berger Paints India Limited1 further the respondent has also relied on Basavaraj and others vs.

The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer2 in addition to Rohan Builder (India) Private Limited case, the petitioner relied on the decision

Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd, vs. General Manager and others3 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in Tricolor Hotels

Limited and others vs. Dinesh Jain and Others.4

1. 2024 SCC Online SC 2494

2. Manu/SC/0850/2013

3. Manu/SC/1239/2024

4. Manu/DE/4377/2022

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 12 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

The Hon’ble Supreme court in Rohan Builders case held that “the power of the court to extend the time is to be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient cause for such extension. Such extension is not granted mechanically on filing of the application. The judicial discretion of the court in terms of the enactment acts as a deterrent against any party abusing the process of law or espousing a frivolous or vexatious application. Further, the court can impose terms and conditions while granting an extension. Delay, even on the part of the arbitral tribunal, is not countenanced. The first proviso to Section 29A(4) permits a fee reduction of up to five percent for each month of delay attributable to the arbitral tribunal”. In Basavaraj and others case it was held that “the law on the issue can be summarised to that effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay”. In Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd it was held that “the meaning of ‘sufficient cause’ for extending the time to make an award must take colour from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process. The primary objective in rendering an arbitral award is to resolve disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism as contracted by the parties. Therefore, ‘sufficient cause’ should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution”.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Tricolor Hotels Limited case relating to prior to amendment of Section 29-A.

14.a. On careful perusal of the decisions cited herein above the

Hon’ble Apex court held that the party who found to be negligent

and not acted diligently or remain inactive and it is not justified to

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 13 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

condone the delay and sufficient cause has to be seen in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution. In the present case, the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal is at fag end. Further the parties herein are mutually agreed on the substituted Arbitrator. It cannot be ignored the circumstances of sudden recusal and unfortunate demise of said Arbitrator. It is the contention of the petitioner that supervening circumstances took time to explore the alternatives for continuation of tribunal. This court taking into consideration these circumstances is of the opinion that the petitioner bonafides cannot be doubted in making this application and particularly in the context of fag end of Arbitral proceedings.

Therefore it is very difficult to brand this petition as vexatious in nature. This court is of the opinion that the circumstances as submitted by the petitioner is adequate to meet the sufficient cause.

b.The Hon’ble Supreme court in Basavaraj and others vs. The

Spl. Land Acquisition Officer held that sufficient cause lacks means that the party should not act in an negligent manner and there is a one of bonafide on its part. In the context of fag end of proceedings and the facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be justified to allege that the petitioner has not acted diligently or remained inactive.

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 14 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

c.In the case on hand, circumstances like recusal and the unfortunate demise of sole arbitrator contributed to the delay, making it hard to doubt the petitioner’s bonafides or diligence.

Furthermore, the Arbitral proceedings are at final stage.

15.In view of the above discussion and the reasons assigned thereon, despite the delay close to 10 months in filing of this application, the petitioner could able to show its bonafides in seeking extension of mandate of arbitral Tribunal. For these reasons this court held that the petitioner could able to make out the grounds for extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal.

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Hon’ble Sri Justice C.

Praveen Kumar (Retd. High Court Judge), is extended for a period of 6 months from the date of this order, for completing the Arbitral proceedings and for publishing the award in respect of the dispute between the parties.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, Corrected and

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 2 nd day of March,

2026.

JUDGE,

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

C.O.P.NO.78 OF 2025 15 of 15 DT:02-03-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

...NIL...

JUDGE,

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN

THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL

OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD.

TUESDAY, DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT : Sri. N. VENKAT RAM

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD.

COS. No. 85 of 2025 (New)

OS. No. 355 of 2018 (Old )

Between: M/s Haridwar Infrastructure Private Ltd, (CIN: U45400DL2010PTC211844) a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Plot No.520, Ansal Chamber-2, BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi-110066 and its Branch office at Plot No.13, Door No.8-2-293/J/III/13, Road No.82, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033, Telangana State. Represented by its Authorised Signatory Sri D. Venkata Ramana S/o Sri D. Kishan Rao

...Plaintiff

AND

1. M/s Inntec Elevator Private Ltd, a Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 1068, MonoharPukur Road, Kolkata-700029, West Bengal, Represented by its Authorised Signatory.

2. Smt. Jharna Ghosh W/o Late Sri S.K. Ghosh, M/s Inntec Elevator Private Ltd, 1068, MonoharPukur Road, Kolkata-700029, West Bengal.

3. Smt. Sudheshna Ghosh D/o Late Sri S.K. Ghosh, M/s Inntec Elevator Private Ltd, 1068, MonoharPukur Road, Kolkata-700029, West Bengal.

4. Sri Sayan Mukherjee S/o not known to the plaintiff, M/s Inntec Elevator Private Ltd, 1068, MonoharPukur Road, Kolkata-700029, West Bengal.

...Defendants

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 2 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 25-02-2026 in the presence of Sri Ch. Rajesh Babu, Counsel for the Plaintiff, and of Defendants No.1 to 4 remained exparte and having stood till this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This commercial original suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendants for recovery of money and compensation. Initially suit was instituted before Hon’ble Chief Judge as the same was registered as O.S.No.355 of 2018 and later the same was transferred to this court on the point of Jurisdiction and re-numbered as COS

No.85 of 2025.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief:

a).The plaintiff is a private Limited Company registered under the

Indian Companies Act 1956 and engaged in the business of construction of infrastructure and power projects. The defendant

No.1 is manufacturer, supply and installation of passenger elevators and an ISO certified company.

b).Late Sri S.K.Ghosh representing the first defendant was offered to supply the elevators/lift and sent technical details to the plaintiff’s company through email dt. 22.08.2015 and after verification of plaintiff’s technical team the same was confirmed by the first

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 3 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026

defendant/S.K.Ghosh. Later the plaintiff company placed purchase order vide P.O.No.HIL/PO/SKPPL/15-16/170 dt. 14.09.2015 for supply of 8 passenger elevators for Dikchu Hydro Power project at Sikkim.

The value of purchase order was Rs. 9,15,000/- inclusive of O&M and taxes. The first defendant accepted the purchase order and undertaken to execute the same. Later work order dt. 25.09.2015 was issued and also paid a sum of Rs. 1,37,250/- towards advance.

c).The first defendant gave incomplete technical specifications and after continuous reminders revised incomplete drawings were sent on 31.12.2015 and there was inordinate delay on the part of the first defendant. After several reminders the first defendant submitted defective Quality Assurance Plan on 05.04.2016 and revised Quality

Assurance Plan submitted on 26.05.2016 with a delay of seven months. Due to the inordinate delay had led to change in scope of work and the same was informed to the first defendant and in turn the first defendant sent a commercial proposal on 22.07.2016 and later the plaintiff had issued an amended purchase order on 01.09.2016 and communicated through email dt 17.09.2016.

d). The first defendant sent final drawings with delay on 09.12.2016 and the same was approved by the plaintiff’s technical team on 16.12.2016. In pursuance to the assurances made by the

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 4 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026

first defendant the plaintiff made payment of Rs.7,18,300/- against the invoice dt 14.10.2016 in addition to the payments that is

Rs.1,37,250/- and Rs.1,37,250/- made on 29.09.2015 and 18.05.2016 respectively and thus the first defendant totally received 90% of amended purchase order.

e)Despite regular follow ups also the first defendant had failed to despatch the lifts and later the plaintiff learn that Mr. S.K. Ghosh was expired on 14.04.2017. After the defendants No. 2 to 4 represented to the plaintiff and sent a letter dt. 05.06.2017 promising to install the lift, but they failed to supply elevator within time and thereby caused wrongful loss to the plaintiff. Finally the plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendants calling upon to supply the lift within 15 days from the date of receipt of letter, however the same was returned with an endorsement “LEFT”. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit.

3.The summons were not served on defendants despite ordered for several times, hence substituted service was ordered by way of publication of summons in news paper. Accordingly summons were published in Times of India. The defendants were not present in pursuance to the substituted service of summons, as such on 07.01.2020 X Addl. Chief Judge passed exparte orders.

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 5 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026

4.In order to prove it’s case on behalf of plaintiff, PW1 was examined and marked Ex.A1 to A 21 marked.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.Now the points for consideration is:

i). Whether the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 9,92,800/- to the first defendant for supply and installation of elevator/ Lift?

ii).Whether the defendants failed to supply and install the elevator/Lift?

Iii).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of

Rs.13,55,301 with interest @ 24% PA?

iv).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of

Rs. 6,00,000/- towards compensation?

Points No. (i) & (ii):

7. The case of the plaintiff is that there was a contract between the plaintiff and first defendant with regard to supply of elevator/lift and installation at Dikchu Hydro Power Project at Sikkim and the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.9,15,000/- that is 90% of purchase order and the first defendant has failed to install the lift as per the agreed terms in purchase order and work order and thereby

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 6 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026

committed breach of contract and caused wrongful loss to the plaintiff.

8.In order to prove these facts, on behalf of plaintiff, PW1 was examined and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A21. Ex.A1 is the Articles of

Association of plaintiff’s company which prove that the plaintiff is a registered Private Limited Company. Ex.A3 is the technical specifications has given by the first defendant with regard to auto door passenger lift with detailed specifications enclosed with Ex.A3.

In pursuance of Ex.A3 and after satisfying with the technical specifications the plaintiff had issued Ex.A5 purchase order and

Ex.A6 work order.

9.The contention of the plaintiff is that the first defendant has failed to give drawings within the agreed period in pursuance to purchase order. There was inordinate delay. PW1 has testified these facts in his PW1 chief affidavit and the said evidence is remained as unchallenged one. PW1 further testified that initially defective drawings were submitted on behalf of first defendant and later after deliberations corrected drawings were submitted and the same was approved by the technical team of the first defendant.

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 7 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026

10.PW1 further testified that the first defendant also failed to submit Quality Assurance Plan (QAP). However, the plaintiff persuaded the first defendant then he submitted a defective QAP and later submitted revised QAP after delay of seven months. During this delay the scope of work was led to change and accordingly the first defendant has submitted a commercial proposal on 22.07.2016 and in pursuance to the said commercial proposal the plaintiff has issued amended purchase order Ex.A13. This oral evidence is corroborated by documentary evidence that is, Ex.A10 to Ex.A12.

11.Further, the PW1 testified about payment of Rs.7,18,300/- against proforma invoice dated 14.10.2016, in addition to the payments made on 29.09.2015, 18.05.2016 and thus, the plaintiff totally paid a sum of Rs.9,92,800/- , that is 90% of amended purchase order as on 28.01.2017. The above referred oral and documentary evidence when tested the principle of Preponderance of

Probabilities, the plaintiff could able to prove the contract between plaintiff and first defendant with regard to the supply of elevator/lift and further plaintiff also could able to prove the payment of

Rs.9,92,800/- on three occasions.

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 8 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026

12.It is the case of the plaintiff that Mr. S.K. Ghosh who represented the first defendant was expired on 14.04.2017 and thereafter, the defendants No.2 to 4 representing the first defendant had assured to execute the balance works and to instal the lift but they failed to supply the elevator. Finally the plaintiff issued Ex.A20 legal notice by demanding to complete the works within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, however, the said notice was returned with an endorsement that the addressee left. PW1 has testified this fact in the chief affidavit and as noted in the foregoing part of judgment the said evidence is remained as unchallenged one.

By the strength of aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiff could able to prove that the first defendant has received the payment of Rs.9,92,800/- and failed to instal the elevator/lift.

13. Point No. (iii):

At points No.(i) and (ii) this court held that the plaintiff that he had paid an amount of Rs.9,92,800/- that is 90% of the value of the purchase order. Particularly an amount of Rs.1,37,250/- was paid on 18.05.2016 and also some amount on 29.09.2015 and further an amount of Rs.7,18,300/- was paid on 14.10.2016. In the foregoing part of Judgment by the strength of oral and documentary evidence this court held that the defendants are responsible for the breach of

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 9 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026

contract. Further the amount paid by the plaintiff is also in their hand, therefore, such amount has to be restored to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has parted with his money since the date of its payment and breach of contract is attributable to the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the amount which he paid to the first defendant. Coming to the rate of interest the plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum. The contract is commercial in nature. This court taking into consideration of the nature of contract and the prevailing rate of interest in commercial transactions is of the view that 15% per annum could be just and reasonable. The plaintiff has issued notice finally on 04.10.2017 whereunder he demanded the defendants to instal the lift from the date of receipt of said notice. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff put an end to the contract by issuing Ex.A20 notice to the defendants, as such awarding interest from the date of Ex.A20would be just and fair. Accordingly, this point is answered.

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 10 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026

14. Point no.(iv):

The plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation for breach of contract. However, there is no pleading and evidence to justify the claim for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

Therefore, in the absence of any pleading and evidence it is very difficult to ascertain the loss suffered by the plaintiff. Therefore, for the lack of pleadings and evidence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any compensation. Accordingly, this point is answered against plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs by directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of

Rs.9,92,800/- with interest @ 15% per annum from 04.10.2017 to till date of filing of suit and thereafter @15% per annum on the principal sum adjudged till date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum on

principal sum of Rs.9,92,800/- till realization.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I and Partly typed to dictation, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th Day of March, 2026.

JUDGE,

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 11 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1: D. Venkata Ramana Rao None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Certified true copy of certificate of incorporation with Memorandum and Articles of Association, dated 28.12.2010 Ex.A2Certified true copy of Board Resolution dated 22.02.2018 Ex.A3Revised Offer letter from D1, dated 22.08.2015. Ex.A4E-mail from D1 confirming technical specifications of plaintiff, dated 12.09.2015. Ex.A5Purchase order along with tech specifications and General conditions, dated 14.09.2015. Ex.A6Work order along with employers scope and general conditions, dated 25.09.2015. Ex.A7E-mail intimation drawings sent by D1, dated 07.10.2015. Ex.A8E-mail intimation revised drawings sent by D1, dated 31.12.2015. Ex.A9E-mail intimation final GA drawings by D1 for approval,

dated 16.02.2016.

Ex.A10 E-mail intimation with remaining drawings for approval,

dated 24.03.2016.

Ex.A11 E-mail intimation with revised quality assurance plan,

dated 26.05.2016

Ex.A12 E-mail and letter, dated 21.07.2016 for price escalation due to change of design, dated 22.07.2016. Ex.A13 Amendment purchase order dated 01.09.2016. Ex.A14 E-mailintimationalongwithfinaldrawings,

dated 09.12.2016.

Ex.A15 E-mail intimation and approval of final drawings,

dated 16.12.2016.

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 12 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026

Ex.A16 E-mail intimation and test certificate, dated 09.01.2017 Ex.A17 Proforma invoice by defendants, dated 14.10.2016. Ex.A18 E-mail intimation of payment of Rs.7,18,300/- dated 28.01.2017. Ex.A19 Letter promising to execute balance of work by defendants,

dated 05.06.2017.

Ex.A20 Letter from plaintiff to defendants for breach of obligation,

dated 04.10.2017.

Ex.A21 Postal Return cover, dated 23.10.2017.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

NIL

JUDGE,

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD

COS.NO. 85 OF 2025 13 of 12 DT: 10-03-2026