Dismissed

The Union of India, v. M/s Sayappa Raju Engineering Constructions Ltd.

Telangana HC29 Oct 2014CRP/2210/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging an order directed attachment of funds for recovery of a final arbitral award. The court granted three months to deposit the amount, restricting further pleas for extension.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted three months to deposit the awarded amount; attachment proceedings may continue if not complied with.

The Union of India, Vs M/s Sayappa Raju Engineering… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2210 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU)

¶4

This revision is directed against the order and decree, dated 16-04-2012 in E.P.No.67 of 2011 in O.P.No.683 of 2000 on the file of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

¶5

2. The above petition was filed by the respondent herein-D.Hr against the petitioner herein-J.Dr. for attachment of the amount in the account of J.Dr., available with the garnishee i.e., The Manager, State Bank of India, Naval Base Branch, Visakhapatnam, account name Cash Assignment of DGNP (V) CDA, Secunderabad Code No.530, for recovery of Rs.10,98,68,403-39 ps. in pursuance of the judgment, dated 01-04-2009 in CMA No.3916 of 2002 on the file of High Court of A.P.

¶6

3. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner herein-J.Dr was directed to deposit Rs.10,98,68,403-39 ps within one month from the date of that order, failing which, the Cash Assignment of DGNP (V) CDA Secunderabad Code No.530 available with garnishee of J.Dr i.e., the Manager, State Bank of India, Naval Base Branch, Visakhapatnam, shall be attached for realization of the E.P. amount. Hence, this revision.

¶7

4. The only contention raised by the counsel representing the Assistant Solicitor General is that the Executing Court failed to appreciate the contentions raised in a right perspective and failed to deal with in the manner prescribed under the legal provisions, both on question of fact and law and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶8

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein-D.Hr contended that the award passed by the Arbitrator has become final, that this Court also confirmed the award in CMA No.3916 of 2002 on 0104-2009, that since the award has become final, the petitioner-J.Dr is bound to pay the amount and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶9

6. The award was passed on 31-03-2000 by the sole Arbitrator, allowing 18 claims. Challenging the award, the Government filed O.P.No.683 of 2003 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking to set aside the award and the same was dismissed on 22-102002. Against the said order, CMA No.3916 of 2002 was filed before this Court and the same was also dismissed by judgment, dated 01-04-2009. Against the said judgment, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty to Union of

¶10

India to obtain clarification with regard to applicability of the Act. In pursuance of the said direction, no clarification petition was filed. Instead, they filed Review CMA MP No.123 of 2012 in CMA No.3916 of 2002. This Court vide order, dated 18-06-2014 disposed of the petition with the clarification that the provisions of the new Act are applicable. Therefore, as on today, there is no impediment for recovery of the amount in pursuance of the award passed by the Arbitrator. That is the reason why, the learned District Judge, rightly passed the impugned order directing the petitioner herein-J.Dr to deposit the said amount within one month, failing which, the Cash Assignment of DGNP (V) CDA Secunderabad Code No.530 available with garnishee of J.Dr i.e., the Manager, State Bank of India, Naval Base Branch, Visakhapatnam, shall be attached for realization of the E.P. amount. The said order needs no interference by this Court.

¶11

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, three (3) months time is granted to the petitioner herein-J.Dr. to deposit the amount. Registry is directed not to entertain any application seeking ‘extension of time’ or filing a petition under the caption ‘for being mentioned’ in this regard. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.

¶12

K.C.BHANU, J

¶13

ANIS, J

¶14

DATED: 29-10-2014 Hsd

The Union of India, v. M/s Sayappa Raju Engineering Constructions Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India, v. M/s Sayappa Raju Engineering Constructions Ltd.

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

Kota Venkata Rami Reddy Vs The State Bank of India, Rep.by its Chief Manager

The Zilla Parishad, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, Vs M.Srinivas

Ahmed Abdul Muqeem, Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal

The East Godavari District Co-operative Societies Vs The Govt. of A.P. Rep by its Prl.Secretary, Agriculure and

Union of India, represented by The Director General, Vs Nuthana Mahalakshmi N.

Smt. Razia Begum Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal