Disposed

M/s. Sree Minerals, v. M/s. R.K. Mining Private Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2020CRP/1005/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of two civil revision petitions regarding third party claims in execution proceedings. The court held that pending applications before the executing court preclude interference and continued interim orders for eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Both Civil Revision Petitions disposed of; interim orders continued for eight weeks; petitioners directed to pursue pending execution applications.

M/s. Sree Minerals, Vs M/s. R.K. Mining… — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.985 OF 2020 AND 1005 OF 2020

¶3

COMMON ORDER :

¶4

(Per AVSS, J.)

¶5

Since these two revisions arise out of one Execution Proceedings, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two revisions by way of this common order.

¶6

In C.R.P.No.985 of 2020, petitioner is a third party-claim petitioner. In the said revision, challenge is to the order dated 10.03.2020 passed by the VII Additional District Judge (Family Court), Anantapuram, in E.P.No.13 of 2016. In C.R.P.No.1005 of 2020 also, the same order and the consequential steps are under challenge.

¶7

Heard Sri Prabhala Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. M.V.K.Murthy, learned senior counsel, representing Sri V.Srikanth Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶8

Seeking enforcement of Arbitral Award dated 13.10.2015 in C.M.P.No.505 of 2012 passed by the learned Arbitrator in favour of respondent No.1 herein, the respondent No.1-decree holder initiated execution proceedings by way of filing E.P. No.13 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional District Judgecum-Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur. Petitioner in C.R.P.

¶9

¶10

No.985 of 2020 filed E.A.No.18 of 2020, and the petitioners in C.R.P. NO.1005 of 2020 filed E.A.No.830 of 2018, in the aforesaid Execution Petition, under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, claiming E.P. Schedule D and E properties respectively. The said applications came to be dismissed by the executing Court for non-prosecution. Petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petitions filed applications to set aside the respective default orders, and the said applications are pending consideration before the executing Court.

¶11

It is contended by Sri Prabhala Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners that assailing the Award dated 13.10.2015 passed by the learned Arbitrator, respondent No.2judgment debtor filed Appeal Suit No.8 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Bellary, Karnataka and the same is pending consideration before the said Court. It is his further contention that though initially sale of the E.P. Schedule property was to be completed by 13.04.2020, the sale could not be concluded by the said date by the Agency to which the process was entrusted. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that subsequently, without being preceded by a fresh sale proclamation issued by the executing Court, the Agency conducted the sales on 14.06.2020 and 15.06.2020, as such, the said sales conducted by the Agency are to be treated as void and non est in the eye of law.

¶12

¶13

On the other hand, learned senior counsel Dr. M.V.K.Murthy contends that the present revision petitions are not maintainable, and having filed applications for restoration of the claim petitions, it is not open for the petitioners herein to approach this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also the submission of the learned senior counsel that since the subject properties are movable properties, no further confirmation of sale is necessary by the Court. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the nature of the property.

¶14

It is absolutely not in controversy that the Execution Applications filed by the petitioners vide E.A. No.38 of 2020 and 55 of 2020 respectively, seeking to set aside the default dismissal orders passed in E.A. Nos.18 of 2020 and 830 of 2018 in E.P. No.13 of 2016, dated 27.02.2020 and 10.03.2020 respectively, are pending before the executing Court as on date. The petitioners herein have raised a claim with regard to E.P. Schedule D and E properties. Though a number of contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel, in view of the pendency of the said applications, this Court is not inclined to go into the validity of the developments that have taken place before the executing Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, all the aspects which are sought to be urged before this Court, can as well be agitated before the executing Court, having regard to the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶15

¶16

For the aforesaid reasons, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioners herein to pursue the Execution Applications before the executing Court filed seeking restoration of their respective claim petitions. So as to enable the petitioners herein to pursue the said applications, this Court deems it appropriate to continue interim orders dated 26.08.2020 and 14.09.2020 in above C.R.Ps. passed by this Court, for a period of eight weeks from today. It is needless to observe that all the parties to the litigation shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the applications pending before the executing Court. No order as to costs of the Civil Revision Petitions.

¶17

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petitions, shall stand closed.

¶18

_____________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶19

_______________ K.SURESH REDDY, J

¶20

16.12.2020 DRK

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶23

COMMON ORDER

¶24

IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.985 OF 2020 AND 1005 OF 2020

¶25

16.12.2020

¶26

DRK

M/s. Sree Minerals, v. M/s. R.K. Mining Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sree Minerals, v. M/s. R.K. Mining Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vanthala Dharmayya Vs Union of India

.Yedala Subba Rao Vs the Union of India

Chalasani Lalitha Ratnam, Krishna Dist Vs Chalasani Venkata Krishna Praveen Kumar, Krishna Dist

M/s. B.V.S.R. Energy Systems, Vs M/s. R.K. Mining Private Limited

Chanderlapati (Tadepalli) Himabindu Vs Chanderlapati Vami Ram Mohan Rao

V Vishnu Mohan, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs Jayalakshmikaja, Guntur Dist