Disposed

Annayavari Swarnalatha v. Annayavari Saiprasad

Telangana HC4 Mar 2014CRP/5002/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court found the petition non-maintainable as the lower court had not passed any final order on the interim application. The matter was disposed of without evaluating merits, directing the tribunal to decide the application within a time limit and prohibiting mining operations until relief. The court recorded representa

What did the court decide?

Directions to the tribunal to dispose of the interim application within specific dates and a stay on mining operations pending such disposal.

Annayavari Swarnalatha Vs Annayavari Saiprasad — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

C.R.P.No.5002 OF 2013

¶3

O R D E R: (Per G.Rohini, J)

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the notice ordered by the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge–cum–Arbitral Tribunal, Kadapa in I.A.No.2681 of 2013 in AOP No.390 of 2013.

¶5

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶6

The main AOP No.390 of 2013 is filed by the revision petitioners under Section 8 (1),12 (3) (4) and Section 13 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge – cum – Arbitral Tribunal, Kadapa with the following prayer:

¶7

“The petitioners therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the petition passing order in favour of petitioners and against the respondents for the reliefs as follows:

¶8

i) appoint five arbitrators representing each 1/5^th sharer to resolve all the problems for smooth running of mine pertaining to M/s. Krishnappa Asbestos and Barytes (Pvt) Limited,

¶9

ii) Order for appointing the petitioner No.4 to manage the entire mining of M/s. Krishnappa Asbestos and Barytes (Pvt) Limited for the benefit of all sharers with alternative to appoint court receiver to do the same till final award is being passed by the above said five arbitrators.

¶10

iii) Order restraining the respondent No.5, his assignees, agents and successors and henchmen from in any way entering into the premises of M/s. Krishnappa Asbestos and Barytes (Pvt) Limited,

¶11

iv) Grant such other and further reliefs as such the Honourable Court deems fit and proper to meet the ends of justice and;

¶12

v) Grant costs of the petition.

¶13

Along with the said petition, the revision petitioners also filed I.A.No.2681 of 2013 purportedly under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim injunction restraining the 5^th respondent either directly or through respondents 1 to 4 or in the capacity of Special Officer to play any role in

¶14

the management of the mines pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings.

¶15

By order, dated 28.11.2013, the Court below issued urgent notice to the respondents returnable by 27.12.2013. At that stage the petitioners approached this Court by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court by order dated 05.12.2013, granted interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in any way with the petitioners taking over the management in view of the alleged total mismanagement of the 5^th respondent.

¶16

After service of notice, appearance has been entered on behalf of the respondents and vacate petitions are filed contending inter alia that the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India itself is not maintainable.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, we find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revision petition itself is not maintainable since no order as such was passed by the Court below on the petitioners’ application filed under Section 9 of the Act. As mentioned above, the Court below had merely ordered notice to the respondents on 28.11.2013. Under the circumstances, the matter does not deserve consideration on merits. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the Revision Petition with a direction to the Court below to dispose of I.A.No.2681 of 2013 following due process of law.

¶18

It is represented by the learned counsel for both the parties before this Court that as of today no mining operations are going on. Therefore, it is made clear that till appropriate orders are passed by the Court below on I.A.No.2681 of 2013, neither of the parties shall take any steps for carrying on the mining operations.

¶19

Accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the

¶20

following directions:

¶21

a. The respondents, who are present before this Court, have undertaken to enter their appearance before the Court below and file their counters in I.A.No.2681 of 2013 on or before 10.03.2014. The same shall accordingly be filed.

¶22

b. Thereafter, the Court below shall hear both the parties and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in I.A.No.2681 of 2013 on or before 20.03.2014.

¶23

c. The representation of the learned counsel for both the parties that no mining operations are being carried on as of today and that the same situation will be continued till an appropriate order is passed by the Court below in I.A.No.2681 of 2013 is hereby placed on record.

¶24

d. The undertaking of the learned counsel for both the parties that the parties will extend their fullest cooperation for disposal of I.A.No.2681 of 2013 within the time fixed by this Court is also placed on record.

¶25

This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any pending shall stand closed.

¶26

______________ G. ROHINI, J

¶27

_________________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 04.03.2014. C.C. Tomorrow B/o Kvsn

Annayavari Swarnalatha v. Annayavari Saiprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annayavari Swarnalatha v. Annayavari Saiprasad

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

Emmadi Baskar Reddy, Vs Karvy Computershare Private Limited

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

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

Konaseema Gas Power Ltd. Vs Union of India

Nadella Prasad Vs Yadlapati Gopala Krishna Murthy

G.Ramalingeswara Rao Vs M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited