Dismissed

M/s Amrthua Construction v. M/s Chabbras Assciates

Telangana HC23 Oct 2019ARBAPPL/69/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed an interim application seeking modification of an arbitration order related to jurisdiction, limitation, and fees. The court held that the petitioner's contradictory pleas on notice service lacked merit and the application touched upon merits reserved for the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed and costs of Rs. 20,000 imposed on the applicant.

M/s Amrthua Construction Vs M/s Chabbras Assciates — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶7

|.A.NO: 1 OF 2020

¶8

¶9

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 69 OF 2019

¶10

Between:

¶11

IV/s Chabbra's Associates, Represented by its Managing Partner Ramesh Chabbra, S/o.Satish Chander Chabbra, H.No. 1 1-1-776114, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad, Telangana

¶12

AND

¶13

....PET|T|ONER/ RESPONDENT

¶14

It4/s Amrutha Construction, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri G.Raghava Reddy, S/o.Late Narayana Reddy, R/o. Flat No.502, Adhiti Arcade, Plot No.41, H.No. 10-3-811, Near Ganesh lVandir, Vijay Nagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500057

¶15

,,.RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT

¶16

Petition under Section 15'1 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to modify the order dated 2311012015 in Arbitratlon Application No.69 of 2019 in terms of limitation, jurisdiction and payment of arbitration fee on the basis of MOU dated 1310112015 and other documents f iled herein.

¶17

This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon perusing the order of this Court dated 23110119 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Udaya Bhaskara Rao Pochetti, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, Advocale for the Respondent.

¶18

The Court made the following Order:-

¶19

Heard the counsel for the applicant- respondent in this application

¶20

This application is filed to modify the order dated 23-10-2019 passed in Arbitration Application no.69 of 2019. The grounds mentioned^jn the affidavit in seeking modification of the order, at the outset are touching the merits of the matter which are to be decided by the learned Arbitrator. There is absolutely no merit, much less any ground to modify the order dated 23-10-2019 which was passed on merits.

¶21

Curiously, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application are to the effect that the petitioner's firm is a very big firm and even though notice was served in the office, it was not brought to the notice of the managing partner. Whether the firm is big or small or whether a person is big or small it makes no difference when once notice is issued by Court and it is received by the petitioner's firm, it is open for the petitioner to either enter appearance and contest the matter or ignore the same. The personal notice sent by the applicant was served on the petitioner's firm but the same was returned^"not claimed" which itself is a deemed service of notice, the postal endorsement thereof is filed into the Court vide USR No.58764 of 2019 on^'14-10-2019 by the applicant's counsel.

¶22

ln the counter filed by a pplica nt-respo nd ent to this application it is stated that the petitioner has filed his preliminary objections to the claim petition filed by the applicant before the learned Arbitrator, which goes to show that this frivolous application is filed only to drag on the matter and gain time ln the objections filed before the Arbitrator in pan 4 of the objections it was stated that the staff member of the petitioner - organization has received the notice issued by the counsel for the applicant, but the staff of the petitioner failed to bring it to his notice. Whereas in this application it is stated that the petitioner has not received the notice at all. These are the two contradictory stands of the petitioner from his own pleadings.

¶23

It is needless to mention that afler 2015 Amendment Act whereby Section^'1 1(64) was brought in; the^jurisdiction of this Court is confined to only examination of existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement and invocation thereof, nothing more and nothing less and leave all matters to be decided by Arbitrator,

¶24

It is also very heartening to note that the counsel representing the petitioner ought to have better advised the petitioner as to the legal position in matters of appointment of arbitrator in an application filed under Section 1 1(6) of the Act.

¶25

None appears for the petitioner and there is no representation on his behalf which goes to show that the petitioner does not want to prosecute this application. ln the circumstances, there is no other option except to dismiss this application by imposing costs of Rs.20,000 on the petitioner payable to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, High Court premises, Hyderabad.

¶26

The Member Secretary to take necessary steps in the event the costs imposed by this Court is not paid within reasonable time, in accordance with law.

¶27

Sd/-IV.SANTHI VARD NI JOINT REGI RAR ,TRUE COPY'

¶28

SECTIO OFFICER

¶29

To The t.4ember Secretary, Telangana State Legal Services Authority, High Court premises, Hyderabad.

¶30

2 One cc to Sri Udaya Bhaskara Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 3 One cc to Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, Advocate (OPUC) 4 Two CD Copies

K \ I-=

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110812020

t
o
O 2 B AUG 2O2O
* *
P,i-i c,
t;

¶35

ORDER

¶36

I.A.NO.1 0F 2020 IN

¶37

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.69 ot 2019

¶38

Dismissing the application imposing costs.

¶39

@ $6*

M/s Amrthua Construction v. M/s Chabbras Assciates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Amrthua Construction v. M/s Chabbras Assciates

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 Suryavanshi Spinning Mills Limited Vs Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission

M.D., M/S Suryauday Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. Nalgonda Dist Vs Secy, Tserc., Hyd and 3 Ot

M/s. Sri Ram Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission

B.Narayana, Karimnagar Dist. Vs Dy. Secretary(Lpg), Min. of Pet and Natural Gas, Delhi and 2 Oth

Mrs B Rekha And Another Vs M/s Mww Gachibowli Private Limited

P. Subramanyam Reddy Vs State of Telangana