HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * *

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 623 of 2024 Between:

M/s.Brothers Engineering and Erectors Ltd.

Regd.Office at Chennai, rep.by Managing Director P. Karunakaran Vasu and 2 others .....APPELLANTS AND M/s. Zorin Infrastructure, LLP, Kakinada, rep.by its Managing Director Boddu Ajay .....RESPONDENT DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28.01.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may Yes/No be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No copy of the Judgment?

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ________________

V. SRINIVAS, J * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS + CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 623 of 2024 % 28.01.2025 Between:

M/s.Brothers Engineering and Erectors Ltd.

Regd.Office at Chennai, rep.by Managing Director P. Karunakaran Vasu and 2 others .....APPELLANTS AND M/s. Zorin Infrastructure, LLP, Kakinada, rep.by its Managing Director Boddu Ajay .....RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Varun Byreddy &

Sri Sai Charan Chodisetty Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. Lanka Sai Prasanthi Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1. (2007) 3 SCC 686 2. (2023) 13 SCC 661

3. (2007) 5 SCC 28 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON’BL SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 623 of 2024

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri Varun Byreddy and Sri Sai Charan Chodisetty, learned counsels for the appellants and Ms. Lanka Sai Prasanthi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Arbitration Act’) has been filed by the appellants, the defendants Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.234 of 2015 in the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The respondent is the plaintiff. In the suit, the appellants filed I.A.No.21 of 2016 under Section 8 (1) of the Arbitration Act to refer the parties to arbitration. The said I.A. was rejected by Order dated

27.08.2024. Challenging the said Order, this appeal has been filed.

Facts:

3. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of money with subsequent interest. The transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.234 of 201 was for execution of contract work for mechanical erection of three units of Turbine, Generator, Condenser, High Pressure Piping and connected works at KSK Mahanandi Power Plant, Akaltara, Jangir, Champa District, Chhattisgarh by the plaintiff. The agreement dated 02.08.2011 was entered with agreed terms and conditions signed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, represented by the 3^rd defendant.

4. The defendants/appellants filed I.A.No.21 of 2016 under Section 8 (1)

of the Arbitration Act to refer the suit dispute along with I.A.No.383 of 2015 to an arbitrator as agreed under Clause No.17 of the agreement, dated 02.08.2011. It was stated that the agreement dated 02.08.2011 in Clause No.17 contained arbitration clause of compulsory reference of any dispute, but the plaintiff did not file the said agreement with the plaint. So, the plaintiff suppressed the arbitration clause fact. However, once the parties elected the special forum for arbitration and settlement of any dispute, the suit dispute could not be adjudicated by the Court. Clause No.17 of the agreement was comprehensive and covered any dispute. It was binding on the parties and so the request was made to refer the parties to the arbitration. The defendants did not file any written statement in the suit. The original agreement dated 02.08.2011 was in the custody of the plaintiff and a Xerox copy of that agreement was supplied to the defendants in response of the notice memo under Order 12 Rule 8 which was filed along with I.A.

5. The plaintiff/respondent filed objections/counter to the