THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR COMCA No.20 OF 2025 Mr. Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Mamidi Avinash Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Appeal arises out of an order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (‘Commercial Court’) in COP No.45 of 2024.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the Appeal has become academic in view of the partnership firm being at the stage of dissolution. The respondent No.1/Firm was the petitioner before the Commercial Court in an application under Section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’). The appellant was one of the Managing Partners in the partnership firm and suffered the impugned final order dated 28.01.2025, which restrained the appellant from selling, transferring, alienating, changing nature of property or creating any third party right in respect of the petition schedule properties till disposal of the arbitral proceedings.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there are several issues which are required to be decided, including the maintainability of the application filed under Section 9 of the Act by the partnership firm.

4. We are informed that the appellant/partnership firm has taken steps for the appointment of an Arbitrator in AOP No.144 of 2025, which is presently before the Division Bench-I. Counsel submits that the appellant is objecting to the said petition.

5. Upon query of the Court, it has been clarified that the appellant (the respondent No.1 in the section 9 petition) has made a specific statement in the counter to the section 9 petition that the partnership firm was dissolved pursuant to a Notice issued by the appellant under section 43 of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It is also noted that the respondent No.1 in the COMCA (the partnership firm and the petitioner in section 9 Petition) has filed an application for appointment of an Arbitrator under section 11 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is now pending before the Division Bench-I.

6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Appeal based on the statement made by the appellant with regard to the dissolution of the partnership firm, leaving all issues concerning the alienation of assets of the partnership firm open for decision by the Arbitrator, if the respondent No.1 succeeds in the pending section 11 application before the Division Bench-I.

7. The impugned order dated 28.01.2025 shall hence remain in effect until the appointment of an Arbitrator if and when the application under section 11 succeeds.

8. COMCA No.20 of 2025 is disposed of in terms of the above. All connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 24.11.2025 va THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR COMCA No.20 OF 2025 DATE: 24.11.2025

va