IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.228 of 2024 DATE: 12.03.2026 Between:

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd.

…Applicant AND Footwear Design and Development Institute.

…Respondent

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Zubair Fazal, learned counsel for the applicant; and Mr. R.S.Shravan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant Arbitration Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator in pursuance of the contract dated 18.10.2018 and to decide the disputes between the applicant and the respondent.

3. The applicant is said to be an agency which runs security services. The applicant had entered into an agreement with the respondent to provide security services for the period from November, 2018 to November, 2019. The tender was granted on the basis of the Government contract market. The contract period was from 01.11.2018 to 20.11.2019. The applicant had also furnished a security deposit in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for an amount of Rs.4,55,000/-.

4. In terms of the contract, the learned counsel for the applicant contends that he had provided all necessary services to the satisfaction of the respondent institute and as a result the contract stood extended from time to time. However, the respondent failed to release the payment dues to the applicant for the services rendered for the period between November, 2018 to November, 2019. That, in spite of the applicant raising bills and repeatedly approaching the respondent, the admitted dues were not released to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted the applicant sent e-mails and letters to the respondent and also met the officials at the institute, yet it could not fetch any results. In all, the applicant, as on date is entitled for an amount roughly Rs.46,64,853/- from the respondent. In addition, the applicant is also entitled for refund of the security deposit of Rs.4,55,000/- along with certain statutory dues towards EPF and ESIC amounting to Rs.5,80,178/-

and Rs.1,02,528/- respectively.

5. It was in this context when the respondent failed to honor the claim, the applicant invoked arbitration clause 1.8 read along with clause 16 of the GeM vide letter dated 16.06.2021, requesting to appoint an Arbitrator.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent had not disputed the fact so far as the agreement entered into between the parties and also insofar as the applicant being engaged for security services. However, as regards the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent took two major objections. Firstly, the claim raised by the applicant is one hit by delay latches and barred by limitation. Secondly, invocation of the arbitration clause under Section 21 was at a belated stage.

7. So far the period of limitation is concerned, looking at the proceedings drawn itself would give a clear indication of the COVID period coming in the way and in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, dated 10.01.2022, the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 has to be excluded for all practical purposes. Moreover, the question of limitation again is a mixed question of fact and law and in order to answer that query, proper evidence would be required to be advanced on either side and it would be thereafter for the Arbitrator to take a decision on the basis of materials brought before him.

8. Even on the aspect of invoking Section 21 of the Act is concerned, as has been objected by learned counsel for the respondent, this again is a matter of evidence which has to be produced by either side. Nonetheless, from the materials available on record it appears that after the COVID period, in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo-Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, dated 10.01.2022, Section 21 proceedin