Dismissed

M/s H.P. Sharma Processors v. Kailash Chandra Gaur

Telangana HC3 Mar 2014CMA/304/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act challenges an arbitrator's order dismissing an application for stay of proceedings. The Court held that since proceedings were advanced to a final stage, the arbitrator's decision was not erroneous.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; no costs awarded; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/s H.P. Sharma Processors Vs Kailash Chandra Gaur — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶3

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.304 OF 2014

¶4

Date: 03.03.2014

¶5

Between: M/s. H.P. Sharma Processors A Proprietary Concern having its office at S.No.47, 48 & 52, Kattedan Hyderabad Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Hanuman Prasad Sharma

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

And Kailash Chandra Gaur and two others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶10

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.304 OF 2014

¶11

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶12

This appeal is preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2014 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed by the appellant seeking stay of arbitral proceedings.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶14

Admittedly the arbitrator was appointed by this Court by order dated 14.10.2009 at the instance of the appellant himself. Thereafter

¶15

both the parties participated in the proceedings before the learned arbitrator and the order under appeal reveals that now the proceedings before the learned arbitrator are at a final stage. Therefore, in our considered opinion the learned arbitrator cannot be held to have committed any error in declining to stay the proceedings on an application filed by the appellant purportedly under Section 10 of C.P.C. As a matter of fact the learned counsel for the appellant could not substantiate her contention that the bar under Section 10 of C.P.C. is applicable to the proceedings before the learned arbitrator.

¶16

Viewed from any angle, the order under appeal cannot be held to have suffered from any error warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶17

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.

¶18

____________ G.ROHINI, J _________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 03.03.2014 Mva

M/s H.P. Sharma Processors v. Kailash Chandra Gaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s H.P. Sharma Processors v. Kailash Chandra Gaur

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

M/s Varuna Investments, Vs M/s. Asian Infrastructure pte, Limited

Union of India Vs K.Saroja

Yelavarthy Veera Venkata Satyanaryana Vs The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India

Emmadi Baskar Reddy, Vs Karvy Computershare Private Limited

Chellingi Gowri Srinivasa prasad, Vs M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Ravulapalem

Konaseema Gas Power Ltd. Vs Union of India