Disposed

Bhel(Randd)Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. M/s Cubix Ventures Private Limited

Telangana HC24 Feb 2014CRP/5143/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision petitioners challenged an interim status quo order and an order reopening a civil O.P. filed under the Arbitration Act. The High Court found interference unnecessary as the amendment petition was pending merits consideration but directed the lower court to decide it expeditiously while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Directing the lower court to dispose of the amendment application within two weeks and the main O.P. within four weeks, status quo ante to be maintained.

Bhel(Randd)Employees Cooperative Housing… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5142 and 5143 OF 2013

¶2

DATE: 24.02.2014

¶3

Between:

¶4

M/s. BHEL (R&D) Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vikasnagar Hyderabad - 93 Rep. by its President Sri C.N.Srinivasan, and another

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

M/s. Cubix Ventures Private Limited Rep. by its Director & CEO Sri Mahidar Vegesna

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5142 and 5143 OF 2013

¶10

COMMON ORDER: (Per G. Rohini, J)

¶11

Both these Revision Petitions arise out of the proceedings in O.P.No.540 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the III-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar. The petitioners in both the revisions are the respondents in O.P.No.540 of 2013.

¶12

The said O.P. is filed by the respondent herein under Section 9(ii)(b)(c)(d) and (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with a prayer to restrain the respondents therein/revision petitioners from

¶13

interfering, taking possession, occupying the suit schedule ABC property pending arbitration proceedings. The Court below granted an interim order of status-quo ante on 17.07.2013. Subsequently by order dated 19.11.2013 the Court below allowed I.A.No.940 of 2013 filed by the respondent herein for reopening the O.P. for further hearing.

¶14

Aggrieved by the order of status quo ante dated 17.7.2013 respondents in the O.P. filed C.R.P.No.5142/2013.

¶15

So far as CRP No.5143 of 2013 is concerned, the same is preferred against the order dated 19.11.2013 in I.A.No.940 of 2013.

¶16

We have heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶17

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the order of status quo ante dated 17.7.2013 by way of an ex parte order is without jurisdiction and unsustainable. It is also contended that the Court below committed a serious illegality in not disposing of the O.P. in spite of the fact that the petitioners filed their counter together with supporting documents. The further contention is that the Court below ought not to have allowed I.A.No.940 of 2013 and reopened the O.P. for further hearing since by that time the matter was already heard and the orders were reserved.

¶18

We have also heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and having carefully gone through the material available on record, it appears to us that the interference by this Court is not called for at this stage on any ground whatsoever.

¶19

It is no doubt true that the Court below by order dated 19.11.2013 reopened the O.P. for further hearing, however it was made clear in the said order itself that whether the petition for amendment filed by the respondent herein under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. is tenable or not tenable would be decided on merits. Since the

¶20

amendment petition is yet to be decided by the Court below, we are not inclined to express any opinion as to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said amendment petition is not maintainable at all.

¶21

Instead, we deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to pass an appropriate order following due process of law on the application filed for amendment as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court below shall dispose of the main O.P. No.540/2013 within four weeks thereafter. Till such time status-quo obtaining as on today with regard to the property in question shall be maintained in all respects.

¶22

Both the revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶23

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

¶24

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶25

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Dt. 24.02.2014 MVA

¶26

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶28

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5142 and 5143 OF 2013

¶29

Date: 24.02.2014

¶30

MVA

Bhel(Randd)Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. M/s Cubix Ventures Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhel(Randd)Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. M/s Cubix Ventures Private Limited

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

Gundegalla Jangaiah, Vs The Secretary (Electricity)

B. Narasimha Reddy Vs Pappula Renaiah

B.Narasimha Reddy, Vs Smt. Baddam Vijay Lakshmi

M/s. Bhe(Randd) Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Vs M/s. Cubix Venture Private Limited

Sri Kota Krishna Subramaniyam Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

T.N.Nagamani Vs L.Peddi Reddy