High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 07 TEL CK 1535

Cancer Treatment Services Hyderabad Private Limited vs Sparsh Hospitals and Critical Care Private Limited

Telangana High Court, Hyderabad · Decided on 31 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Aparesh Kumar Singh, C.J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Arbitration Application No. 79 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 538 words

Heard Mr. Ambati Varun, learned counsel represents Mr. D. Narendar Naik, learned counsel for the applicant.

2.

By order dated 10.07.2026, this Court proposed to appoint Sri Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, as an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The order dated 10.07.2026 is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

"Mr. D. Narender Naik, learned counsel appears for the applicant.

Mr. G. Sai Prasen, learned counsel appears for the respondent.

This application is preferred under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act of 1996') for appointment of a presiding Arbitrator as the nominee arbitrators proposed by both the parties have not been able to arrive at a consensus despite nine months having elapsed after disposal of the Arbitration Application No.131 of 2025 dated 24.10.2025, wherein this Court had been pleased to dispose of the Arbitration Application as both parties had agreed to the nomination of their Arbitrators, who in turn, will nominate the third Arbitrator.

After receipt of notice, the respondent has entered appearance.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court may proceed to appoint the third Arbitrator to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal. He further submits that the Arbitrators may be requested to keep in mind the ceiling of fees prescribed under the Schedule IV of the Act of 1996.

In the facts and circumstances noted above, since both the Arbitrators nominated by the respective parties, have failed to arrive at a consensus for appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator, this Court in exercise of the power under Section 11(6)(b) of the Act of 1996, proposes to appoint Sri Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court (Resident of 52, Allahabad High Court Judges Colony, Sector 105, Noida-201 301; Mobile No.9431015002), to act as the Presiding Arbitrator to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

The proposed Arbitrator is requested to submit his consent and a declaration in terms of Section 12(1) read with Schedule VI of the Act of 1996.

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the proposed Presiding Arbitrator.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks with the response, if any, of the proposed Presiding Arbitrator."

3.

The proposed Arbitrator has submitted his consent along with a declaration under Section 12(1) read with Schedule VI of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') by letter dated 24.07.2026.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that appointment of the proposed Arbitrator may be confirmed.

5.

In that view of the matter, I hereby appoint Sri Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court (Resident of 52, Allahabad High Court Judges Colony, Sector 105, Noida-201 301; Mobile No.9431015002), to act as an independent Arbitrator in respect of the dispute between the parties.

6.

Registry is directed to serve a xerox copy of the entire pleadings to the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator is requested to keep in mind the fee prescribed in Schedule IV of the Act and the time limit prescribed under Section 29A of the Act.

7.

The Arbitration Application is, accordingly, disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.