IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD * * *

C.M.A. No. 918 OF 2018 AND COM.C.A.No.16 of 2020 Between:

M/s. Hindustan Fluro Carbons Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. ..Appellant VERSUS M/s. Rockwell Industries Ltd. And another …Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 12.06.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ________________

P. SAM KOSHY, J ________________

N. TUKARAMJI, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI + C.M.A. No. 918 OF 2018 AND COM.C.A.No.16 of 2020 % 12.06.2025 # Between:

M/s. Hindustan Fluro Carbons Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. ..Appellant VERSUS M/s. Rockwell Industries Ltd. and another …Respondents ! Counsel for appellant (s) : Mr. Y.Venkateshwarlu ^Counsel for the respondent(s) : Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, leaned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of Mr.Setty Ravi Teja, counsel.

We have heard Mr. Y. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Setty Ravi Teja, counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Since both appeals arise out of disputes involving the same parties and pertain to interconnected issues stemming from arbitration proceedings, they were heard conjointly. Accordingly, this common judgment is rendered in disposal of both appeals.

3. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 918 of 2018 has been filed by M/s Hindustan Fluorocarbons Limited, Hyderabad, challenging the decree and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in Arbitration O.P. No. 708 of 1998 by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. Commercial Court Appeal No. 16 of 2020 has been preferred by the same appellant—M/s Hindustan Fluorocarbons Limited Hyderabad—who was the respondent in C.O.P. No. 42 of 2019 assailing the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

5. Brief Statement of Facts:

(a) The appellant, M/s Hindustan Fluorocarbons Limited Hyderabad, a public sector undertaking under the Government of India, is engaged in the manufacture of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Respondent No.1, M/s Rockwell Industries Limited Secunderabad, entered into a supply agreement with the appellant for the purchase of Chlorodifluoromethane (CFM-22) gas. Pursuant to the said agreement, Respondent No.1 placed an order and remitted full payment for the same. However, the appellant failed to supply the gas, allegedly causing substantial financial loss to Respondent No.1.

Alleging breach of contractual obligations and resultant damages, Respondent No.1 invoked the arbitration clause contained in the agreement and appointed Respondent No.2 as the sole arbitrator and asked the appellant for consent. The appellant though agreed in the first instance, later objected to this appointment. Despite the objection, Respondent No.2 proceeded to act as sole arbitrator and passed an arbitral award dated 14.03.1998, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,69,00,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

Aggrieved by the award, the appellant filed Arbitration O.P.

No. 708 of 1998 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), seeking to set aside the award on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and invalid unilateral appointment of the arbitrator.

By order dated 31.10.2001, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowed the appellant’s petition and consequently set aside the arbitral award. However, upon an appeal preferred by Respondent No. 1, this Court, while allowing the appeal, set aside the said order passed under Section 34 of the Act, and remanded the matter to the Chi