Dismissed

Lella Sadasiva Rao v. Smt.Lella Usha Rani

Telangana HC6 Jun 2013CMA/325/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil miscellaneous appeal challenged the dismissal of a petition for interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the appellant failed to prove the existence of a valid arbitration agreement or a reference to arbitration, entailing that the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Interim injunction against transfer of bus permit and vehicle remains dismissed.

Lella Sadasiva Rao Vs Smt.Lella Usha Rani — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY &

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶3

C.M.A.No.325_OF 2007

¶4

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice SVB,J )

¶5

This civil miscellaneous appeal arises under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner in Arbitration O.P.No.494 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, is the appellant herein.

¶6

The appellant filed the said Arbitration O.P under Section 9(4)(c) of the Act with a prayer to grant of interim measure by way of injunction, restraining respondent Nos.1 to 3 from alienating/ transferring the route permit in between Aruna Jute Mills and Nellimarla and the bus bearing No.AP 35/T/3344 in favour of third parties. The trial Court dismissed the said application through the impugned order dated 23.03.2007.

¶7

The case of appellant is that he and late Satyanarayana, the husband of 1^st respondent, and father of respondents 2 and 3, are the sons of one Venkateswara Rao. The appellant claims that he and his brother had a bus permit on the route Aruna Jute Mills to Nellimarla with the bus bearing No.AP 35/T/3344. It is stated that the appellant and his brother entered into an agreement to ply the bus and after meeting the expenses, to share the profits equally. The further allegation is that differences arose after the demise of the husband of 1^st respondent and on that the parties herein

¶8

approached Sri Lingam Bhogeswara Rao for settlement of the disputes. Lingam Bhogeswara Rao is said to have referred the matter to Sri Katamaneni Venkateswara Rao for arbitration. The petitioner states that the appellant and the husband of 1^st respondent, during his life time, have chosen Sri Katamaneni Venkateswara Rao as arbitrator through letter dated 11.01.2002 and suppressing this and contrary to the understanding, respondents filed O.S.No.7 of 2002 for the relief of injunction. The suit was resisted by the appellant as not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section 8 of the Act. It is the case of the appellant that the arbitrator has issued notices for appearance

¶9

of parties on 27.03.2003. Appellant pleaded that even while the arbitration is pending, the respondents are trying to sell the bus permit and also the bus. With these allegations, the appellant prayed for grant of interim measure by way of injunction, to preserve the property.

¶10

The respondents filed counter denying the material allegations in A.O.P.No.494 of 2003. They denied the allegations that the appellant and the husband of 1^st respondent entered into agreement for arbitration. On the other hand, it is the case of respondents that the bus permit, and the bus are in the name of late Satyanarayana and no one has any right, title or interest either on the bus or on the permit.

¶11

It is further contended that the respondents neither have approached Lingam Bhogeswara Rao nor reference was made to Katamaneni Venkateswara Rao. It is their case that

¶12

the matter is not the subject matter of any arbitration and no relief can be granted under Section 9 of the Act.

¶13

In the trial Court, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Alla Madhusudhan Rao as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On the other hand, the 1^st respondent was examined as R.W.1 and one M.V.Surya Paul as R.W.2 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.

¶14

The trail Court framed three points for consideration:

¶15

1. Whether the petitioner and the husband of the 1^st respondent i.e., the father of respondents 2 and 3 got equal share in the bus bearing registration No.ADN 7767 and the replaced bus bearing registration No.AP 35T 3344 and the route permit between Aruna Jute Mill and Nellimarla?

¶16

2. Whether the respondents 1 to 3 have been trying to dispose of the said bus and the route permit even though the petitioners have got equal shares therein?

¶17

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for?

¶18

Briefly, the finding of the trial Court is that the appellant herein has failed to prove the existence of agreement and reference of dispute to Katamaneni Venkateswara Rao and accordingly dismissed the petition.

¶19

The O.P was filed in the month of August 2003 and it was dismissed on 23.03.2007. The record does not disclose that at any point of time the appellant had the benefit of interim measures in relation to the subject matter of the petition. Secondly, to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act, one must satisfy the existence of agreement, dispute, effort to resolve the dispute through arbitration. It is then, that a petition can be filed to preserve the property, in the manner specified under Section 9 of the Act.

¶20

In the present case, the appellant has failed to firstly show that there is any agreement which contains an arbitration clause. Secondly, the appellant failed to establish that through letter dated 11.01.2002 the parties agreed to choose Katamneni Venkateswara Rao as arbitrator. The appellant failed to satisfy the first two requirements to invoke the jurisdiction of Section 9 of the Act. This Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. At any rate, there is no necessity of such orders at this point of time.

¶21

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶22

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

_________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶24

____________ S.V.BHATT, J

¶25

06^th June 2013

¶26

Lrkm

Lella Sadasiva Rao v. Smt.Lella Usha Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lella Sadasiva Rao v. Smt.Lella Usha Rani

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

Vajja Prakasarao, Vs Sri Visakha Grameena Bank

Inala Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs S.Nageswara Rao

Shaikh Abdul Haque, Vs Durdana Qaiser

Dr. Swarna Mandava Vs M/s. Vishnu Housing (P) Ltd.

P.Maheswar Vs P.Vinay Kumar

G.Rajeswar.Secbad. Vs Smt.G.Laxmi Narasa.Secbad.