THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Mr.M D Nawaz Hyder Ali, learned Counsel representing Mr. Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.

Mr.K Venkatesh Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent on the last occasion i.e., yesterday on 05.08.2025.

2. The facts of the case leading to the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2025 are recorded in the proceeding sheet dated

05.08.2025.

3. The appellant seeks setting aside the impugned order on the ground that the appellant’s application under Section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act) for restraining the respondent from interfering with the petition schedule property of the appellant, was partly allowed by the learned Commercial Court.

4. However, the learned Commercial Court directed the appellant to clear the arrears of rents, maintenance and electricity charges till the date of the order in respect of the petition schedule property of the appellant. The appellant was directed to make payment towards arrears of rents etc., within four (04) weeks from the date of the order i.e., within

20.03.2025.

5. It is the admitted case of the appellant that the appellant did not comply with the impugned order to the extent of clearing the arrears of payment and instead filed the present COMCA No.21 of 2025 on 24.04.2025 i.e., beyond the time stipulated by the learned Commercial Court for compliance.

6. It is also admitted that the Arbitral Tribunal has not been constituted till date. This is relevant since the appellant was given liberty to make an appropriate application before Arbitrator for interim measures. It should also be noted that the respondent was restrained from interfering with the petition schedule property of the appellant till the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.

7. Although learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed a contempt petition against the respondent for non-compliance of the impugned order, we do not find any such contempt petition on record. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also disputed the fact of any contempt petition being filed by the appellant.

8. Section 9 (2) of the 1996 Act mandates constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal within 90 days from any interim order passed under Section 9 (1) of the said Act. Hence, the Arbitral Tribunal should have been constituted by 20.05.2025.

9. Counsel appearing for the appellant informs the Court that the appellant had sent a notice dated 13.06.2024 to the respondent under Section 21 of the 1996 Act, but that the respondent failed to reply to his notice. The Court is also informed that the appellant has taken steps to file an application under Section 11 (6) of the 1996 Act, but that the application was returned by the Registry with objections on

26.04.2025.

10. Since the disputes between the parties have not been resolved till date, and the appellant has admittedly not complied with the relevant part of the impugned order, we deem it fit to appoint an Arbitrator to enable the parties to carry their disputes to Arbitration. Needless to say, the appellant shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application for interim relief before the learned Arbitrator.

11. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute except that the appellant has defaulted on obligation to comply with the relevant part of the impugned order. Hon’ble Sri Justice Reddy Kantha Rao, retired Judge of this Court is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have agreed to the choice of the Arbitrator. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be fixed by the parties.

12. COMCA No.21 of 2025 is disposed of in terms of the above. All connected applications, if any, shall stand closed.

T