Disposed

Dijaya corporation Berhad v. M/s. Starlite Global Enterprise (India) Ltd.

Telangana HC18 Mar 2014CRP/5104/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the revision petition pending a Section 34 application against an interim order. It directed the trial court to decide the set-aside petition urgently within four weeks and adjourned the tribunal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Chief Judge to dispose of O.P.No.1848/2013 within four weeks; Tribunal proceedings adjourned.

Dijaya corporation Berhad Vs M/s. Starlite… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5104 OF 2013

¶3

DATE: 18.03.2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

Dijaya Corporation Berhad (A company registered in Malaysia) Having its Regd. Office at C-06-02, 6^th Floor, Block C Wisma TT, No.1 Jalan PJS 8/15, Dataran Mentari 46150 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Rep. by its Power of Attorney Mr. Alluri Sriharinadha Raju

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

M/s. Starlite Global Enterprise (India) Ltd. (Formerly: Telangana Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.) (A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) having its corporate office at Plot No.1056A, Road No.52, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. Ram Gopal Patwari and five others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5104 OF 2013

¶13

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

¶14

This revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.09.2013 made in

¶15

Arbitration Case No.1 of 2012 on the file of the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of the respondents 4 to 6 herein.

¶16

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶17

Admittedly the arbitration proceedings are pending before the Arbitral Tribunal. Pending the said proceedings the respondent No.1 herein filed I.A.No.2/2012 to implead the appellant herein as a party to the arbitration proceedings. The learned Tribunal allowed the said application by order dated 28.07.2013. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner herein preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 28.07.2013. The said O.P. is now pending on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶18

In the meanwhile, as the Arbitral Tribunal is proceeding with the arbitration proceedings and passed the impugned order dated 14.9.2013 directing to produce the witnesses of the claimants for cross-examination, this revision petition is filed contending inter alia that as per Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal cannot go on till the application made under Section 34 is refused.

¶19

Though the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 itself is not maintainable since the order dated 28.07.2013 is not an award at all, having regard to the fact that the proceedings in O.P.No.1848/2013 have come to an end, we do not think it is necessary for us to express any opinion on merits of the case.

¶20

It is represented by the learned counsel for both the parties that O.P.No.1848 of 2013 is now coming up for arguments whereas the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal stand adjourned to June, 2014. Therefore, the interest of justice would be met if the Court below is directed to dispose of O.P.No.1848 of 2013 in the meanwhile.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the

¶22

case, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to dispose of O.P.No.1848/2013 following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶23

Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶24

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶25

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶26

Dt. 18.03.2014

¶27

Note: Issue C.C in three days (B/O) MVA

¶28

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

¶29

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5104 OF 2013

¶30

Date: 18.03.2014

¶31

MVA

Dijaya corporation Berhad v. M/s. Starlite Global Enterprise (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dijaya corporation Berhad v. M/s. Starlite Global Enterprise (India) 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

M/S Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. Vs S.P.Agarwala and 3 Ors.

Y.v.Prasad Vs M/s Sandeep Seeds and Farms (P) Limited

D. Nooney Ranga Nayakulu Vs Atla Jayabharat Reddy

Nidumolu Rama Satyanarayana Vs Nadamuri Ram Prasad

Tammineni Naramma Vs B.N.R.Constructions

Vamsi Krishna Tamirisa Vs Smt. Namitha Gomatam Tamirisa