Dismissed

Government of Telangana v. M/s. Rani Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Telangana HC8 Jan 2021CRP/638/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench of the Telangana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by the Government of Telangana against an order of execution proceedings. The court held that the petitioner could not raise new contentions in revision and allowed time for payment of the balance amount, leaving attachment pending.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed; time is granted to the petitioner to pay the balance award amount; attachment to be enforced in default.

Government of Telangana Vs M/s. Rani… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶9

l.A. NO. 2 ot 2020

¶10

and /in

¶11

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 638 OF 2020

¶12

Petition under Section 115 of CPC to revise the order dated 10-12-2019 made in E.P. No. 242 ot 2019 on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶13

Between:

¶14

Government of Telangana, (formerly Government of Andhra Pradesh) Roads and Buildings Department, represented by its Chief Engineer (R & B), Erramanzil, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...PETITIONER/ Petitioner

¶15

AND

¶16

[r//s. Rani Constructions P!,t. Ltd, (Formerly Rani lnfrastructure Development Limited), represented by its managing director Sri Galla Harsha Vardhan, S/o.Sri Galla Gundaiah, age 33 years, Occ.Business, having office at 203, Navketan Complex, Sarojni Devi Road, Secunderabad - 500 003 ...RESPONDENT/ Respondent

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders staying all further proceedings in E.P No,2421201 9 on the file of the Hon'ble X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and to pass such other order or orders as Hon'ble Court deems fit.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶20

Betwee n:

¶21

IV/s. Rani Constructions P\d. Ltd, (Formerly Rani lnfrastructure Development Limited), represented by its managing director Sri Galla Harsha Vardhan, S/o.Sri Galla Gundaiah, age 33 years, Occ.Business, having office at 203, Navketan Complex, Sarojni^Devi Road, Secunderabad - 500 003. .. Vacate Stay Petitioner / Respondent

¶22

And

¶23

Government of Telangana ( Formerly Government of^{AndhraPradesh) Roadsand} Buildings Department, represented by its Chief Engineer (R & B )^Erramanzil, Hyderabad , Telangana State. .. Respondent / Civil Revision Petitioner

¶24

*"t[

¶25

Petition under Section 15'1 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order of stay dated 2110412020 passed in lA No.1 of 2020 in CRP No.638 of 2020 and pass such other order or orders as may be just and necessary in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case,

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: Govt. Pleader for Arbitration

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Vikram Pooserla

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND

¶30

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶31

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2O20

¶32

AND/IN

¶33

CIVIL REVISION PETITION rr-O.638 OF 2020

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

lPer Sn Jusnce .\4.5 l?amdchandra Rao.)

¶36

This Revision is filed under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dt. 10.12.2019 ol the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.P.No.2,l2 of 2019 filed by the respondent for execution ol the Arbitral Award dt.15.12.2016 in relation to the Contract Agreement No.1 1/201 1- 12/S.E/R&B/K-Vfi4, dt.12.10.201 1.

¶37

2, The petitioner in the Revision is the Govemment of Telangana which succeeded the cornposite State of Andhra Pradesh^after bifurcation of the said cor.nposite State of Andhra Pradesh^{into the new} State of Telangana and the residuary State ol Andhra^Pradesh

¶38

3, The contract in question rvas in respect ol widening ol^{road to two} lane and improvements to Yellandu - Gundala in^k.m.0/0 to 5l/60ⁱⁿ Andhra Pradesh under LWE Schen.re and an^{amount of Rs.9537.79lakhs} rvas sanctioned. This road r.vas considered^{very imporlant for agency} areas to transpoft their agricultural^products to^{market centresat} Yellandu, Khammam, Kothagudem market centres, the^{area being naxal} infested where extremist activities were then^going on. It^{was also} required to be used for security forces for Khammam^{and Warangal} District borders.

¶39

¶40

In view of the importance of the widening of two lane road, approvals were obtained from the Ministry of Roads, Transponation and Highu,a1,s, Covernment of India. New Delhi and thereafter the contract was awarded to the respondent by tl-re then Goverrunent of Andhra Pradesh.

¶41

Disputes arose betu,een the Govemment of Ar-rdhra Pradesh and the respondent and the matter was referred to Sole Arbitrator fbr adjudication.

¶42

By Award dt.15.12.2016, the Sole Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 19,45,08,328/- with interest at 12ok per annum. It was also observed that if payment is not made to the respondent within four months 1'rom the date of publication of the Award, interest al 160/0 per annum u,ould be liable to be paiti from the date of the Award till the date of payment

¶43

The petitioner herein did not llle anv Application under Scction 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the Arvard and as such the Award attained fir-ralitv.

¶44

The respondent issued notices on 13.05.2017, 25.09.20 17, \7.1.2017,05.02.20 18, 28.03.2018 and 15.10.2018 to petitioner to satisfy the award of the arbitrator. But the petitioner did not comply.

¶45

So E.P.No.242 of 2019 was hled by the respondent in November, 2018, claiming a sum of Rs.66,34,93,601/- including Advocate's fee of Rs.65,00,000/-.

¶46

In the E.P., the respondent had filed an Application under Order XXI Rules 43, 64 and 66 CPC to attach the movables belonging to the

¶47

¶48

petitioner lying^{in the officeof the Chief Engineer, Roads and Buildings} Depanlnent,^{Govemuentof Telangana,Erramanzil, Hyderabad'}

¶49

ll. counter affidavit^{was filed in the E.P. taking the only stand that} the contract^{had been a$,ardedat the instance of the Ministry of Roads,} Transportation^{and Highways, Governmentof India' Nerv Delhi' that} part payment of^{Rs.2675 Crores was paid to the respondentafter filing} ol the E,.P and^{the petitioner had addresseda letter to the Ministry ol} Roads, Transportation^{and Highways, Govemmentof India' NewDelhi} to make available^{the balanceamount payable to avoid legal} complication.^{It was furtherstated that after sanction of the saidamounts} by tl-re Ministry^{of Roads, Transportationand Highways' Government of} India, New^{Delhi, the same would be paid to the respondent'}

¶50

Though^{this counteraffidavitwas filed in July' 2019' no payment} othcr than the sum^{of Rs.26.75 Crores rvas released to the respondent'}

¶51

Having^{rvaited fot a cor.rsiderable time' on 10'12'2019the I} Additional Chiel^{Judge,City Civit Court, Hyderabad recordedthat the} petitioner was^{not coming forwardto make any payment in spite ol} adequate^{tirne being grantedto it and issued the order to attachthe} petition schedule^{property and adjoumedthe matter to 09'01 '2020'}

¶52

Aggrieved^{thereby, the Revision is fi1ed by the petitioner'}

¶53

t5. On 21 .04.2020^{taking note of the fact that the petitioner had} deposited Rs.26.75^{Crores in the Court below for paymentto the} respondent,^{this Courlgranted stay of further proceedingsin the E'P'}

¶54

{

¶55

I.A.No.2 ol 2020 is llled to vacate the said order bv the respondent.

¶56

Heard learned Government Pleader lor Arbitration appearing fbr the petitioner and Sri S.Rajan, learned counsel appearing lbl Sri Vikrarn Pooserla, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶57

The learned Govemment Pleader appearing lor the petitioner contends that the Court below ought not to have directed attachment ol the E.P. schedule propefty when a major portion of the decretal amount had already been paid as per the Award.

¶58

Some dispute about the corectness of the claim made in the E.P. is also now sought to be canvassed for the first time in the Revision by the petitioner.

¶59

A dispute is also raised to the claim for payment of Advocate tbe ol Rs.65.00,000/- in the E.P. made br, the respondenr.

¶60

Sri S.Rajan, learned counsel for the lespondent ref'uted the said contentions and pointed out that in the counter filed in the E.P.. no defence at all has been taken except that a request for payment has been made to the Ministry of Roads, Transportation and Highways of Union of India to release the balance amount and it is not permissible for the petitioner to raise new contentions in this Revision.

¶61

He also pointed out that as regards the claim of Advocate fee rnade in the 8.P., the respondent is entitled to claim the same since the petitioner has lorced the respondent to file the E.P. for recover.y ol the dues as per the Au,ard and such costs cannot be denied.

¶62

It is further stated that as on 27.02.2019 on which date part payment was made by the petitioner of Rs.26.75 Crores, the balance arnount payable by petitioner works out to Rs.42,22,49,787.73 and as on 15.07.2020 it has increased to Rs.51,57,23,1651- and interest for further period be.vond 15.07.2020 is also payable. He pointed out that the petitioner is under tnisconception that the Award is only lor Rs.19,45,08,328/-. He also sated that interest claimed in the E.P. is stlictlf in accordance rvith the Arbitral Arvard.

¶63

I have noted the contentions ofboth sides

¶64

As rightly contended by the counsel for the respondent, in the counter filed by the petitioner in the E.P., no defence at all^{has been} raised by the petitioner except contending that they have^{writtento the} Ministry of Roads, Transportation and Highways, Govemment^{of India,} New Delhi lor payrnent of the balance amount after depositing^Rs.26.75 Crores and that the payment is awaited.

¶65

22, Without raising any other delence in the counter filed^{in the 8.P.,} it is not open to the petitioner to raise new points in the revision.

¶66

The Au,ard itself had been rendered on^{15.12.2016, and more than} fbur years have elapsed since then, and till date,^{the petitionet' had} evaded to comply with the Award in spite of several^{lettershavingbeen} addressed by the respondent for^payment of the same^{to the respondent'}

¶67

After compelling the respondent to file the^E.P. in^2018,the petitioner cannot delay the making of payment further.

¶68

¶69

¶70

25, Though costs have not been^{awarded to the respondent in the} Award, since the petitioner had compelled^{the respondent to llle the E.P.} and dragged it on tbr more than a^{year, the respondentis certainly} entitled to claim the Advocate's fee mentioned^{in the E'P.and cannot} oppose claim in that regard by the respondent.

¶71

Therefore, we see no merit in this Revision^{whichis accordingly} dismissed but time is^granted up to^{19.01.2021to the petitioner to pay} the entire balance amount as^per the terms of^{the Award irrespective of} whether the petitioner is able to^get any amount^{from the Ministry of} Roads, Transportation and Highways, Government^{of India, NewDelhi} or not. In default of such^payment by^{that date, the attachment aflected} by the Court below shall come into eff'ect.

¶72

Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2020 is dismissed.

¶73

Pending miscellaneous^petitions, if any,^{in this Revision Petition}

¶74

shall stand dismissed.

¶75

¶76

SdI N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO, ASSISTANT REGIST R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Hon'ble X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Two CCs to Govt. Pleader for Arbitration , High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad (our)

¶81

One CC to SRI VIKRAM POOSERLA, Advocate IOPUC]

¶82

Two CD Copies

c"//

HIGH COURT

MSRJ & TAJ

DATED:0810112021

oRl)1.-lt

t.,,. \o.^{2 ()F 2020}

¶89

AND /IN

¶90

1 It E TA
-<br>o
19 JAil 202t z
j'r_-<br>\ { *
pt.T C ,o
--:

¶91

CRP.No.638^{of 2020}

¶92

DISMISSIT'\G^{THECIVILREVISION PETITION}

¶93

o-s'J . G"cPP'uD ' )r '\r '-"r

Government of Telangana v. M/s. Rani Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Government of Telangana v. M/s. Rani Constructions Pvt. 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

Golla Srinivas, Nalgonda Dist and Anr. Vs Chepuri Narasimharao, Nalgonda Dist and Anr.

Sri Manthena Venkata Raju and 3 Others Vs Smt Tl. Manikya Bai and 2 Others

Golla Srinivas and Another Vs Chepuri Narasima Rao and Another

Ap. Housing Board Pensioners Association Vs The State of Telangana

A. Srisailam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Tsi Business parks (Hyderabad) Pvt., Ltd. Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax and 2 Others