Disposed

M/s. Vaishnovi Versatile Ventures Pvt. Ltd, v. The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2021WA/342/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal entertaining concerns that the lower court should have directed parties to arbitration instead of civil court. The court held parties should be left to avail available remedies and disposed of the appeal without specifying the forum.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed. Writ appeal left open. Pending miscellaneous applications closed. No costs.

M/s. Vaishnovi Versatile Ventures Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Andhra… — Arbitration | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶5

WRIT APPEAL No. 342 of 2021

¶6

(Taken up through video conferencing)

¶7

M/s. Vaishnovi Versatile Ventures Pvt. Ltd., H.No.6-3-37/22/2, Flat No.9, 4^th floor, Iswarya Nilayam, Dwarakapuri Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad – 500 082, Represented by its Managing Director Sri K.Ajay Kumar and having its office Presently at Devlok Project Site, Sy.No.604, Alipiri – S.V.Zoo Park Road, Tirupati. .. Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited, having its office At 55-17-2 to 4, 5^th floor, Stalin Corporate, Industrial Estate, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada, represented by its Managing Director and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Mr. S. Ravi, Senior Counsel Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. C.Sumon, Spl.Government Pleader Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 : Ms. V.Sujatha Government Pleader Counsel for respondent No.7 : Mr. Venkata Rama Rao Kota

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

Dt: 14.09.2021

¶12

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

¶13

Heard Mr. S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶14

Also heard Mr. C.Sumon, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, Ms. V.Sujatha, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Forest appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6, and Mr. Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

¶15

¶16

This appeal is preferred against an order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.32308 of 2018. The learned single Judge observed that the facts of the case required elaborate enquiry and this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not undertake such enquiry. Accordingly, it was held that the writ petition was misconceived and devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Having said so, at paragraph 9, it was observed as follows:

¶17

“Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the civil Court for redressal of its grievance. In the event of filing any comprehensive suit before the competent civil Court, the civil Court shall consider the same on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order and shall take independent decision based on the evidence available on record and as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.”

¶19

Mr. S. Ravi submits that the appellant has no objection for being relegated to avail appropriate remedies available. However, he contends that specifying the appellant to approach the civil Court is not appropriate in as much as there is an arbitration agreement also in between the parties and, therefore, this Court may indicate that the appellant may avail such remedies as may be available in law.

¶20

Mr. C.Sumon submits that the observations of the learned single Judge will not preclude the appellant to go for arbitration since they have already invoked arbitration clause.

¶21

¶22

So, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether having not entertained a writ petition because it entails an elaborate enquiry, a specific direction could have been given to approach the civil Court or whether the parties should have been relegated to avail such remedy as may be available in law?

¶23

We are of the considered opinion that in a matter of the present nature, the parties ought to have been left to avail such remedies as may be available in law without giving any specific direction as to what remedies they should avail, more particularly, when there is also an arbitration clause in an agreement between the parties.

¶24

Though, as submitted by Mr. C.Sumon, arbitration provision has been invoked, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the order of the learned single Judge as indicated in paragraph No.9 stands on record, it may cause prejudice to the appellant and, therefore, we dispose of this appeal by providing that it is left open to the appellant to seek appropriate remedies for redressal of its grievance. We also provide that if any such remedy is availed by the appellant, observations of the learned single Judge will not influence any such authority in adjudicating the dispute in between the parties.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶26

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶27

¶28

¶29

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

¶31

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶32

WRIT APPEAL No. 342 of 2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

¶33

Dt: 14.09.2021

¶34

M/s. Vaishnovi Versatile Ventures Pvt. Ltd, v. The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vaishnovi Versatile Ventures Pvt. Ltd, v. The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation 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

Dir General Ncc Vs C Subramanyam

Naga Somulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Male Deva Raju, Vs Kumar Vishwajeet

East Godavari Private Schools Vs State of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary

Khaja Bee Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Paluri Rama Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh