Dismissed

Ahmed Nawaz Alladin v. M/s. Hyderabad Industries Limited

Telangana HC7 Jan 2022CMA/650/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal filed under CPC Section 43 Rule 1 (r). The appellate court held that the appeal was not maintainable because the underlying commercial suit did not claim any relief against the appellant, who was added as a proforma defendant.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications were closed; no order as to costs.

Ahmed Nawaz Alladin Vs M/s. Hyderabad Industries… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

CIVIL MIS CELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 650 OF²⁰¹⁹

¶8

Appeal Under Section 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC, aggrieved by the order made by^the learned Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge-cum-Commercial Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.SR No.1332 of 2019^{in COS NO 225 of} 2017 datedS-4-2019.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Ahmed Nawaz Alladin, S/o. Late lqbal Alladin,^{Muslim, Aged about 54 years, Occ.} Business, Fl/o. Shangrila, No.8-2-584, Banjara Hills, Road^{No.9, Hyderaba}

¶11

...Appe lla nUPetitio ner/

¶12

Defendant No.3

¶13

AND

¶14

1 M/s. Hyderabad lndustries Limited,^{(formerlyknownas HyderabadAsbestos} Cement Products Limited) incorporated under the^{provisions of the lndian} Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Sanathnagar,^Hyderabad- 500 018 represented by its Senior vice President and authorized^signatoryMr P.K. Jhunjhunwala S/o Late J.P. Jhunjhunwala, aged about 57^{years,R/o Jubilee} Hills, Hyderabad-34. t ...Respondent/ Respondent/Pla intiff

¶15

2 lv1r. Karim Nawaz Alladin, S/o Late Mr. lqbal Alladin, Fl/o H.No.8-2-584,^Road No.9, Shangri-la, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-s00 034.

¶16

3 Mrs. Manrza Jumabhoy, D/o Mr. lqbal Alladin, H.No.8-2- 584,^{Road No.9,} Shangri-la, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034.

¶17

4 The Tax Recovery Officer-6, Hyderabad

¶18

Union of lndia, Rep. by Union Secretary

¶19

...Respondents/Respondents Def. No. 1,2&4

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petitlon, the^{HighCourtmay be pleasedto stay all} further^proceedings in O.S. No. 225 of 2017 on the^{file of Commercial Court-cum-} XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶22

For the Appellant : Sri R.A. Achuthanand, Advocate

¶23

For the Respondents: None Appeared

¶24

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶25

¶26

HON'BLE TH E CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH^{CHANDRASH.ARMA} AND

¶27

HON,BLI SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^KUMARSHAVILI

¶28

C.M.A.No.650 of 2OL9

¶29

JUDGMENT: (P^- Hon'bLe Sn,.Just,.e AblttarLd Kunor Sl]/rttiLr)

¶30

The presr nt Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is^{liled aggrievedby} the orders dt.(8-04-2019^passed in^{I.A.S.R.No. 1332 ol 2019 in} C.O.S.No.225 of 2017 of the^{CommercialCourt-cum-XXIV} Additionat Chie'Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶31

I*arn:d counsel for the appellant has contended^{that the} appellant is th 3 3.d defendant in^{C.O.S.No.225ol 2Ol7 and the} appellant has f led I.A.S.R.No.1332 of 2Ol9^{contending that the lst} respondent/pla intiff has filed the C.O.S.No.225^{of 2077against the} appellant and the dispute between the^{appellantand the l"t} respondent/ ple intiff is not a commercial^{dispute and the appellant} has filed an ap >lication not to entertain the^{plaint in C.O.S.No.225} of. 2Ol7 filed b1 the l^st respondent/^{plaintiffas the disputebetween} the parties is n rt a commercial^{disputeas definedunder Section2} (1) (c) (i) to (xxir of the Commercial Disputes Act, 2015.

¶32

lt h rs been contended by the appeilant^{thal the 1st} respondent/^p1e intiff has filed suit for^{declarationand perpetual} injunction aga nst the defendants to^{declarethe plaintilf as the} owner and posliessor of Schedule^{A, B and C properties.Originally} suit was liled rn the file of III^{Additional Chief Judge, City Civil} Court, Hyderal^rad. The^{pelitioner herein filed Transfer Petitionin} O.P.No.156 of 1013 on the f1le^{of the Chief Judge, CityCivil Court,} Hyderabad, un ler Section 24 CPC to transfer^{O.S.No.2071 of 2011} filed by the 1' respondent/^{plaintiff against the 3rd defendanton}

¶33

¶34

the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, where O.S.No.393 of 2O1 I is pending. The O.p. No.156 of 2013 was allowed. After introduction of Commercial Courts, the present suit is withdrawn from the III Additional Chief Judge and made over to XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, along with connected suit O.S.No.22 of 2016.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further contended that when it is not a commercial dispute between the appellant and the l"t respondent/plaintiff, the Commercial Court ought not to have entertained the case liled by the lst respondent/plaintiff and allowed the present petition in I.A.S.R.No. 1332 of 2Ot9 in C.O.S.No.225 of 2OlZ. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that appropriate orders be passed in the appeal arrd .e;Jct the plaint filed by the lst responden t/ plaintifl against the appellant.

¶36

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel appearing for both sides, is of the considered view that the commercial suit filed by ths 1"r respondent/ plaintifi i.e. C.O.S.No.225 of 2OO7 is not claiming any relief against defendant Nos.2 to 4 including defendant No.3 who is non other than the appellant herein and the 1"r respondent/ plaintiff had specifically stated in the commercial suit that the defendant Nos.2 to 4 have been arrayed as proforma defendants and the Court below has rightty rejected the I.A.S.R.No.133 2 of 2Ol9 in C.O.S.No.225 ot 2Ol7 vide orders dt.Og_O4_2019 by observing that the connected O.S.No.393 of 2O7l was transferred to Commercial Court making it clear that it is a commercial dispute and the

¶37

¶38

appellant has rot challenged the connected O.S.No.393 of 2011 which is bein, i tried by Commercial Court and therefore the appellant has ro locus to contend that there is no commercial dispute betwee^-r him and the 1^s( respondent/ plaintifl as the lst respondent/ pla .ntiff is not claiming any relief ergainst the appellant/3rd d:fendant who are added as proforma parties. As no relief is cle imed by the lst respondent/ plaintiff against the appellant, the tresent C.M.A. is not maintainable. Hence, this Court is not in,:lined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court be ow.

¶39

Accord ingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Pending miscel laneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be r o order as to costs.

¶40

To,

¶41

SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO ,JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

,- I l',

SECTION OFFICER

1 The commercia court-cum-XXrV Additionar chief Judge-cum-commercial Judge, City Civil Court, Hvderabad

¶46

2 9ne 99^{to Sri R A. Achuthanand, Advocate} tOpUCl Two CD Copies 4 One Spare Copy KNK .JR L,-' 1

HIGH^COURT

DATED:O7^10112022

JUDGMENT

-:::-.:_
I
/ ld
a\ ,rrr jt[?-
L
<br>

¶51

CMA.No.650^{of 201)}

¶52

APPEAL^{IS DISM SSED, NO COSTS.}

¶53

ak. ;,tb

¶54

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶55

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY

¶56

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶57

PRESENT

¶58

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶59

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 650 oF 2019

¶60

Between:

¶61

Ahmed Nawaz Alladin, S/o. late lqbal Alladin, Muslim, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Shangrila, No.8-2-584, Banjara Hills, Road No:g, Hyderabad'

¶62

AND

¶63

...AppellanUPetitioner/ Defendant No.3

¶64

1 M/s. Hyderabad lndustries Limited, (formerly known as Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited) incorporated und'er the provisi6ns of the lndian C-ompanies Act,^'1956, having its registered office it Sanathnagar, Hyderabad1q9^{018 representedby its SeniorvicePresident andauthorized signatorytvlr.} P.K. Hills, Jhunjhunwala S/o Hyderabad-34. Late J.P. Jhunjhunwala, aged about - 57 ...hespondenVyeais, R/oJubilee Respond enUPla intiff

¶65

2 !r [a11m^{NawazAlladin, S/o Late lr/r. lqbat Attadin,R/o H.No.8-2-584,Road} No.9, Shangri-la, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-s00 034.

¶66

Mrs. Maniza Jumabhoy, D/o Mr. lqbal Altadin, H.No.8-2- 584, Road No.9, Shangri-la, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-s0O 034.

¶67

The Tax Recovery Officer-6, Hyderabad

¶68

Union of lndia, Rep. by Union Secretary

¶69

... Respondents/Respondents Def. No. 1,2 & 4 Appeal Under Section 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC, aggrieved by the order made by the learned commercial court-cum-XXIV Additional chief Judge-cum-commercial Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in l.A.SR No.1332 ot 2019 in COS NO 22S of 2017 dated 8-4-2019.

¶70

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the order of the Lower court and the material papers in the^petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R.A. Achuthanand, Advocate for the Appellant and None Appeared for the Respondent.

¶71

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶72

That the Appeal of the Appellant herein be and is hereby dismissed

¶73

Thal there is no order as to costs to this Appeal.

¶74

SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' ' /''tr',

¶75

SECTION OFFICER

¶76

To,

¶77

''1. The Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge-cum-Commercial Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶78

Two CD Copies

¶79

One Spare Copy

KNK

zTR

HIGH COURT

DATED:O7l01l2022

DECREE

CIVA.No.650 of 201(

APPEAL IS DISMISS ED, NO COSTS.

¶88

w ;"' 0

Ahmed Nawaz Alladin v. M/s. Hyderabad Industries Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmed Nawaz Alladin v. M/s. Hyderabad Industries 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

Telangana Educational Development Foundation Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Khaja Aijazuddin Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Wipro Ge Health Care Pvt.Ltd., Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by The Principal Secretary

G Sampath Vs State of Telangana

A. Narasimha Reddy Vs The District Collector Mahaboobnagar District

Pagidi Damodar Vs The State of Telangana And 2 Others