Dismissed

Sri C.Venkatramana Reddy v. The Ap Health and Medical Housing and infrastructure

Telangana HC13 Oct 2011CRP/4306/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the sole arbitrator's inaction. Relying on Chintakayala Siva Rama Krishna, the court held that arbitrator procedural objections lie under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, not Article 227. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner did not appear, with liberty granted to seek relief under Section 14.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Liberty granted to avail remedies under Section 14 of the Act.

Sri C.Venkatramana Reddy Vs The Ap Health and Medical Housing… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4306 of 2011

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy)

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the inaction on the part of the Sole Arbitrator-respondent No.3 herein in continuing the arbitration proceedings due to lack of co-operation of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, and praying to issue necessary directions to the Arbitrator.

¶5

The petitioner herein filed W.P.No.31341 of 2010 for the very same relief and this Court pointed out the maintainability of the writ petition, and hence, he converted the same into the present Civil Revision Petition for the reliefs aforementioned.

¶6

If the Arbitrator fails to act, the petitioner shall follow the procedure under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), namely, apply to the Court to decide on the termination of the mandate and appointment of fresh arbitrator etc.

¶7

This Court in Chintakayala Siva Rama Krishna v. Nadimpalli

¶8

Venkata Rama Raju^[1] held that objection to the procedure adopted by the arbitrator can be assailed under Section 34 of the Act, but not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶9

When the same is pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner on the previous date of hearing i.e., on 30.09.2011, he sought for an adjournment and hence, the matter was directed to be posted after “Dasara Vacation, 2011”. Accordingly, the matter was posted on 12.10.2011, but, however, none represented the petitioner on the said date. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today, when the matter is

¶10

called, none appears for the petitioner.

¶11

Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies under Section 14 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J

¶13

________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J

¶14

Date: 13.10.2011 va

¶15

[1] AIR 2006 AP 234

Sri C.Venkatramana Reddy v. The Ap Health and Medical Housing and infrastructure

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C.Venkatramana Reddy v. The Ap Health and Medical Housing and infrastructure

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Haryana Vs M/s. Delta Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Rajahmundry

The Hyderabad Cricket Association Vs M/s.Visakha Industries Limited

Smt. S.G.Ramadevi Vs Smt. G.S.Sailaja

D.Ashven Vs Mrs.N.J.Lalitha

M/s. Lilasons Breweries Limited, a Company incorporated Vs The Governemnt of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Arthos Breweries Limited, a Company incorporated Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh