Case Law › High Court › Arbappl v. R.piaza. Siddartha Publiq Sch...

Arbappl v. R.piaza. Siddartha Publiq School Road. Moghalrajpuram. Vijayawada. Krishna District

High Court 23 Feb 2023 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · aphc

Parties

Date of order

23 Feb 2023

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Arbappl v. R.piaza. Siddartha Publiq School Road. Moghalrajpuram. Vijayawada. Krishna District, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH::AMARAVj^ THURSDAY.THETWENTYTHIRDDAYOFFEBRUAITWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYTHREE PRESENT *Bl Between: THEHONOURABLESRIJUSTICERRAGHUNANDANRAj^^ARBITRATIONAPPLICATIONNO:164OF2016 TilakEnterprises..D.No.29-16-5.GopalaReddyRoad.Opp:CourtComplex.Governerpet.Vijayawada.KrishnaDistrict.Rep.byitsManagingPartner.KSivaGangadharaTilak. AND ...Petitioner/Applicant 1.ChiefCommissionerOfIncomeTax.D.No.40-6-15.S.V.R.PIaza.SiddarthaPublicSchoolRoad.Moghalrajpuram.Vijayawada.KrishnaDistrictPublicSchoolRoad.Moghalrajpuram.Vijayawada.KrishnaDistrict 2.Pr.CommissionerOfIncomeTax.D.No.40-6-15.S.V.R.PIaza.SiddarthaPubliqSchoolRoad.Moghalrajpuram.Vijayawada.KrishnaDistrictPubliqSchoolRoad.Moghalrajpuram.Vijayawada.KrishnaDistrict ...Respondents/Respondents Petitionundersection29-AoftheArbitrationandConciliationAct1996prayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighTourt maybepleasedtoExtendthemandateofthearbitratorbysix(6)monthsfromtoday,soastoenablethelearnedArbitratortoproceedwiththeproceedingsandtopasstheawardaftergivinganopportunitytobothparties ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingthePetitionandtheaffidavitfiledinsupportthereofanduponhearingtheargumentsofM/sSrinivasRaoBodduluh.AdvocateforthePetitionerandof SriTKiranmayi.AdvoatefortheRespondent. TheCourtmadethefollowingORDER Therespondentshereinhadtakenaproperty,belongingtothepetitionerherein,onleaseunderleaseagreementdated24.03.1996.CertaindisputesarosebetweenthepartiesduetowhichaformerJudgeofthisCourtwasappointedasanArbitratorintermsofClauses17and18ofthe.saidagreementoflease,bywayofanorderdated31.12.2018.The ArbitralproceedingscouldnotbecompletedwithinthetimemandateunderArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996andthepresentapplication hasbeenfiledforgrantofextensionoftimeforthelearnedArbitratortopasstheorder,aftergivinganopportunitytoboththepartiestosetforththeirease. ItIsstatedintheapplicationthatthearbitralproceedingscouldnot becompletedonaccountofthefactthattherewasdislocationofworkonaccountofCovid-19Pandemic.ThelearnedArbitratorhasalsoexpressedhisconsentforextensionoftime,bytheMemodated19.11.2022 Therespondentshavefiledacounteraffidavitstationthatnoreasonsaresetoutforgrantofsuchextensionoftime,andconsequently,theapplicationshouldbedismissed *“*tht?«showstatthereasonfordelaywasCovid-19ppndemic.Inviewoflargescaleheldth7h"*"-19Pandemic,itcannotbethatthesaidreasonisnotsufficientforgrantofextensionoftimeallowe7T'T''=fromThfromtoday. To, //TRUECOPY// SD/.P.VENKATARAMANAJOINTIREGISTRARSEC-TOnS^ER “>=ock,804, ISir*’5.TwoCDCopies"^^'^*^'9^CourtofA.PatAmaravathi sree

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA

This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.

Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.