M/S Sree Rayalaseema Hi Strength Hypo Ltd. Vs Maersk

Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Limited, 216 KJS^{Complex,Bhagya} Nagar, Kumool, Andhra Pradesh - 518004, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Mr. J Srinivasulu

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

AND

¶15

MAERSK, A/S, 50 Esplanaden DK-1263 Copenlragen K^Denmark,Rep. by its Authorized Signatories Mr. Casper Munch and^Mr.Jacob Ramsgaard Nielsen.

¶16

...RESPONDENT No.1

¶17

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal^{SecretarytoG.A.D,} Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District

¶18

...RESPONDENT No.2 Petition under Section 5 limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 504 days^{infilingthepresent} writ appeal.

W-J.. /

4

I 4

‘ WRIT APPEAL NO: 484 OF 2025 f-'.

¶23

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against^theorder dated 03.11.2025 in W.P. No. 28852 of 2023 on the file of the High Court. lA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in W.P No. 28852 of 2023 dated 03'^^ November 2023 pending the disposal of the writ appeal^and restrain the Respondent No. 1 from initiating any proceedings against the Appellant before the English High Court including but not limited to contempt proceedings.

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. SANJAY KISHORE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI VIVEK CHANDRASEKHAR APPEARING FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶28

APHC010206762025

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-48Bench AT AMARAVATI [3446]

¶30

l A.No.2 of 2025 s IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 484 of 2025

¶31

M/s.Sree Rayalaseema Hi Strength Hypo Ltd.

...Appellant

Vs.

Maersk and others

...Respondents

Advocate for Appellant;

¶38

Mr. P. Sri Raghuram, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing vice Mr. A. Sanjay Kishore

¶39

Advocates for Resporrdents: Mr, Vivek “^ndrasekhar^{appearingvice} M/s.Indus Law Firm, GP for General Administration

¶40

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶41

DATE ; 20“^ June, 2025.

¶42

PC;

¶43

15 of the Letters Patent has The present Writ Appeal under Clause order dated 03.11.2023, as further extended been preferred against an interim No.28852 of 2023. By virtue of vide order, dated 23.11.2023, in Writ Petition learned Single Judge of this Court had stayed the order dated 03.11.2023, a the order of injunction dated 15.07.2023^{passedbytheTrialCourtinOriginal} Suit bearing O.S.No.373 of 2023.

¶44

Briefly stated, the material facts are as under;

¶45

2

¶46

HCJ & RRRJ^ WA_484_2025

¶47

f

¶48

The appellant - Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Limited,^claims that it entered into four contracts of carriage with^{respondentNo.1-MAERSK} A/S for the transshipment of certain products through^{respondentbyseain} their vessel “MA/ MAERSK SEOUL”. The said vessel is^{statedtohavecaught} fire on 19.07.2015 at a port in Dubai, leading to losses^{beingsufferedbythe} respondent No.1 herein.

¶49

A legal notice, dated 18.06.2021, is stated to have^{beenservedupon} the appellant seven years after the alleged incident,^{claimingdamages.} It appears from the record that on 16.06.2021, respondent No.1 instituted proceedings against the appellant before the English^{HighCourtinregardto} the four contracts of carriage, alleging breach of^{obligationsinregardtothe} said contracts. On 28.03.2023, the appellant instituted^{anOriginalSuitbearing} O.S.No.373 of 2023 before the Court of II Additional^Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, seeking the following reliefs;

¶50

“a) To grant a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and^againstthe Defendant declaring that the parties are amenable and^subjectto the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court; and

¶51

b) To grant a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant restraining the Defendant, its officers, its agents, and any person/person(s) claiming through or under the Defendant from taking^anyaction, steps or initiating any proceedings, or pursuing any^{furtheractions} before the English Court of Justice in London.”

¶52

By virtue of an ex-parte order dated 15.07.2023, the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kurnool issued an^{ad-interiminjunctionagainst} respondent No.1 restraining them from starting or instituting^{orpursuingany}

¶53

HCJ & RRRJ \A/A_484_2025

¶54

4 -

¶55

and restraining them from taking any proceedings in any other jurisdiction further steps in proceedings in foreign Courts. Aggrieved by the same, of a Writ of Certiorari to respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition seeking issuance learned Single Judge of quash the ex-parte order dated 15.07.2023 before a this Court.

¶56

Writ Petition No-28852 of By virtue of order dated 03.11.2023, passed in had stayed the operation of the order passed 2023, the learned Single Judge 09.11.2023, the High Court of Justice in by the Trial Court. Subsequently, on anti-suit injunction application with England and Wales passed an order in an or procure any claim against a direction to the appellant herein, not to pursue was also prohibited from respohdent No.1 in the Ihdian Courts. The appellant setting aside or otherwise filing an appeal against the seeking modification or in Writ Petition No.28852 of order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in subsequently followed vide order dated 2023 on 03.11.2023. This order was 19.02.2024 passed by the aforesaid Court in England.

¶57

that the suit was finally withdrawn on from the record It appears with the direction contained in the order 20.03.2024. This was in accordance English Court. The present writ appeal has dated 19.02.2024 passed by the 03.11.2023 passed by the learned been preferred against the order dated Single Judge, much after the withdrawal of the suit on 20.03.2024 by the appellant. \ 3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, would submit that the clearly unsustainable in law inasmuch order impugned dated 03.11.2023 was

¶58

I

¶59

HCJ & RRRJ WA 484_2025 ^

¶60

R/'

¶61

as no Writ Petition was maintainable against an order^{ofinjunctionpassedby} a Civil Court and that the Civil Court’s order could^{havebeenchallengedonly} under Article 227 of the by way of either a statutory appeal, a revision or Constitution of India before the High Court in its^{supervisoryjurisdiction.} Reliance in this regard was placed upon the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Radhey Shyam and another vs.^{ChhabiNathand} others\

¶62

It was also emphatically alleged that the writ petitioner^{haddeliberately} incorporated the General Administration Department^{oftheStateofAndhra} Pradesh as a party respondent in the writ petition^{withaviewonlytosomehow} seek the issuance of Writ of Certiorari inasmuch as^{theWritofCertioraricould} be issued only against the State or an instrumentality^oftheState. It was sought to be alleged that in the instant case the dispute^{didnotatallinvolve} either the State of Andhra Pradesh or any of its instrumentaliti^esorState- owned entities and therefore, the learned Single Judge^{wasnotjustified} in passing the order impugned.

¶63

There is, certainly, no doubt on the legal proposition^{thatjudicialorders} passed by Civil Courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction^{underArticle226} of the Constitution of India.

¶64

We are inclined to agree with the Senior Counsel for^{theappellantthat} the order impugned as was passed by the learned single^Judge is not

^2015) 5 see 423

V

5

HCJ & RRRJ WA 484 2025

¶69

sustainable in law, in view of the aforesaid settled principle of law and that there was no occasion for the writ petitioner to have incorporated the General Administration Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh as a party respondent inasmuch as it was not a party to the dispute^{whichwaspurely} commercial in nature between the appellant and the petitioner.

¶70

However, we need not at this stage delve into the entire^controversy inasmuch as the appellant herein kept quiet all the^{whilefrom03.11.2023} till the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal on^{21.04.2025.Notonlythis,the} present appeal has been preferred well after the appellant^{withdrewitssuiton} 20.03.2024, in accordance with the directions issued on 09.11.2023 and 19.02.2024 by the English Court.

¶71

In view of the fact that the suit stands withdrawn,^{interimdirectiondated} 15.07.2023 passed by the Trial Court would necessarily^be no longer in existence thereby rendering the entire controversy^academic.

¶72