*THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND *THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR + WRIT PETITION No.37432 OF 2025 % 12-02-2026 # Sagar Asia Private Limited, Represented by its Director V. Jayasri w/o. V. Vidyasagar.

…Petitioner vs.

$ Mr. V. Agastya Sagar, S/o. V. Vidya Sagar and Five Others.

… Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Vivek Reddy, Senior Counsel Representing Ms.Sagarika Koneru ^Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Mr. D.Pavan Kumar ^Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Mr. A.Venkatesh, Senior Counsel, representing P.Pavan Kumar Rao Gist :

>Head Note :

? Cases referred

1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

2. (2020) 17 SCC 93

3. (2020) 15 SCC 706

4. MANU/TL/0107/2025

5. (2024) 4 SCC 1

6. (2025) 1 SCC 611

7. 2021:DHC:1097 – 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3708

8. (2021) 16 SCC 743 9. (2018) 15 SCC 678

10. W.P.No.30363 of 2025 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.37432 OF 2025 DATE: 12.02.2026 Between Sagar Asia Private Limited, Represented by its Director V. Jayasri w/o. V. Vidyasagar.

…Petitioner And Mr. V. Agastya Sagar, S/o. V. Vidya Sagar and Five Others.

…Respondents Mr. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Sagarika Koneru, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr. D. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 – 3.

Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.P.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 08.10.2025 passed by a learned Sole Arbitrator dismissing an application (I.A.No.2 of 2025 in A.D.No.14 of 2024) filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) read with section 16 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) seeking discharge from the main Arbitration Case.

2. The petitioner is the respondent No.3 in the Arbitral proceedings who suffered the impugned order of dismissal. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the Writ Petition (including the writ petitioner) are the claimants in the arbitration and partners of the respondent No.6 (Sagar Asia Global LLP). The respondent No.1 initiated Arbitration under the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Agreement dated 19.04.2019 for dissolution of the respondent No.6-LLP. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the contesting respondents in the arbitral proceedings. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 entered into a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement dated 19.04.2019, the terms of such Agreement were modified by way of Supplement Agreement on

16.05.2019 with the respondent Nos.1 to 3 (claimants).

3. The primary case of the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal was that the petitioner was not a party nor a signatory to the LLP Agreement.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent No.3 argues that the present Writ Petition has been filed on the limited ground of the Arbitrator’s inherent lack of jurisdiction and his failure to comply with section 16(5) of the Act. In support of the first ground, Senior Counsel submits that the Arbitrator was appointed under section 11 of the Act to adjudicate the disputes arising specifically under the LLP Agreement but, however, assumed jurisdiction over other disputes including those arising out of the Distributorship Agreement. Counsel submits that the appointment of the Arbitrator was confined to the LLP Agreement in the section 11 application (Arbitration Application No.61 of 2020) since the High Court confined itself only to the existence of an Arbitration Agreement under the LLP Agreement. Counsel submits that an Arbitrator appointed under section 11 is not empowered to consolidate disputes or hold that other Agreements would be part of the adjudication as a Single Composite Transaction. It is further submitted that the Arbitrator failed to decide the petitioner’s contention that the contesting respon