HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR C.M.A. No.1260 OF 2017 DATE: 24.02.2026 Between The Vice Chancellor, University of Hyderabad, Central University, Hyderabad – 500046 and two others … Appellants And M/s. S.R. Agencies, D.No.7-1-304/6/12, Aditya Nagar, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad – 38, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, R/o. Koteswara Rao ...Respondent Mr. Kapuluru Sai Varun, learned counsel representing M/s. Indus Law Firm for the appellants.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Appeal has been filed against an order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, dismissing I.A. No 854 of 2016 in O.S.No.369 of 2011, filed by the appellants herein for referring the parties to Arbitration in terms of Clause 40 of the General Rules and Directions, under section 8 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’).

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit (O.S.No.369 of 2011) for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,38,172.80 i.e., the principal amount of Rs.10,57,480/- along with interest of Rs.3,80,692/-, for the work done by the respondent/plaintiff under an Agreement dated 04.04.2008. The plaint describes the Agreement as a ‘Tender Agreement for the work of Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) for operation and maintenance of 33/11 KV Sub-station in University of Hyderabad Campus’. The appellants/defendants filed an Application (I.A.No.854 of 2016 in O.S.No.369 of 2011) seeking to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8 of the 1996 Act, in terms of Clause 40 of the General Rules and Directions of the appellants/University.

3. The brief facts leading to the impugned order are as follows:

i) The appellants/defendants called for the tenders for taking up the Annual Maintenance Contract for operation and maintenance of 33/11 KV Sub-Station, take off point at Gopanpalle, Men’s Hostel and Guest House of University of Hyderabad Campus. The respondent/

plaintiff participated in the tender and was declared as the successful bidder. The parties entered into an Agreement dated 04.04.2008.

ii) The respondent/plaintiff issued a legal Notice dated

09.12.2010 to the appellants/defendants calling upon them to clear the pending bills towards the work executed by the respondent/plaintiff.

iii) On 09.06.2011, the respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of the pending bills for the work executed by the respondent/plaintiff.

iv) On 14.11.2012, the appellants filed the Application (I.A.No.854 of 2016 in O.S.No.369 of 2011) seeking to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8 of the 1996 Act, in terms of Clause 40 of the General Rules and Directions of the appellants/University, as per the Agreement dated 04.04.2008. However, the said Application was numbered on 21.03.2016.

v) The learned Trial Court dismissed the appellants’

Application on 07.11.2017, which is impugned in the present Appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A. since the dispute in the Suit was entirely covered by the Arbitration Clause contained in Clause 27 of the Agreement and Clause 40 of the General Rules and Directions, and the parties ought to have been referred to arbitration.

5. The Proceeding Sheets show that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted interim stay on 30.11.2017 for a limited period and the same was extended from time to time. On 05.11.2019, another Co-ordinate Bench extended the interim stay until further orders.

6. The Proceeding Sheets further show that on 15.11.2018, the appellants were permitted to take out notice by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due to the respondent. On 01.02.2019, Mr.Chetluri Srinivas, learned counsel, appeared on behalf of the respondent and sought time to file Vakalatnama. The Court accordingly recorded that service of notice on the re