Dismissed

B.S. Enterprises v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Telangana HC1 Feb 2022WP/5240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed in writ jurisdiction challenging orders dismissing Section 34 petitions under the Arbitration Act. The court held that Section 37 provides a specific statutory appeal remedy, making writ jurisdiction inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

B.S. Enterprises Vs Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NOS: 5240 AND 5252OF 2022

¶9

W.P.No.5240 ot 2022

¶10

Between:

¶11

B.S. Enterprises, represented by its lvlanaging Partner Sri, P. Somanadha^Rao, S/o Sri P. Bramandham, Resident of Door No. 6-23-1A, Opp. VUDA Park, Beach Road, East Point colony, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam-530017.

¶12

Smt. P. Ratnavathi, W/o Sri P. Somanadha Rao, Resident of Door^{No. 6-23-1A,} Opp. VUDA Park, Beach Road, East Point colony, China^Waltair, Visakhapatnam-53001 7.

¶13

Sri D. Nagendra Kumar, S/o Sri D. Veeru Naidu, Resident of^{Door No. 47-10-} 1 3/220, Rednam Plaza, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-53001^6.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

Sriram City Union Finance Ltd, represented^{by its Zonal Manager,-Door} l.lo 9-6629, Bhoopal Reddy Complex, Opposite Bharat Petrol,^{1st Floor,Street No 8,} Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad^- 500029

¶17

Sriram City Union Finance Ltd, represented^{by its GPA holder and authorized} signatory Sr K.V. Ramana, Door No^{3-6-629, Bhoopal ReddyComplex, Opposite} Bfiarat Petrol, 1st Floor, Street No 8, Himayat Nagar,^{Hyderabad - 500029.}

¶18

Honorable Sri T. Sundara Ramiah,^{Door No. 3-6-629, Bhoopal Reddy complex,} 4th floor, street No.B, Himayathnagar,^Hyderabad.

¶19

.,,RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition Under Article 226 of^{lhe Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High court may be pleased} to issue an appropriate writ orde^{or direction and more particularly one in the nature} of writ of Mandamus calling^{for recordsin ArbitrationcaseNo. 664 - of 2O14Before} the Honorable Arbitral Tribunal^{sri. T. sundara Ramiah,- Door No. 3-6-629, Bhoopal} Reddy complex, 4th floor, street^{No.B, Himayathnagar,Hyderabadand consequently} set-a-side ihe^proceedings and^{the award daled 26-04-2016passed by the} Arbitration Tribunal as illegal^{arbitraryu nco nstitutionaland withoutjurisdictionand} further relief which is^just and^{proper may kindly be grantedby this Hon'blecourt} and pass.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleased,to stay the} proceedings in COP tto. ZSOO of 2016 in the^{lX Commercial Court (City CivilCourt)} ityOerafaJ. without following^{due process of law pending disposal of the above writ} petition, and pass.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitior ers : SRI.G.G.V.GOPALA KRISHNA

¶24

Counsel forthe Respor rdents : NONE APPEARED

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO: 52 52OF 2022

¶26

Between:

¶27

B.S. Enterprises, represented by its Managing Partner Sri. P. Somanadha Rao s/o Sri P. Bramar dham, Resident of Door No. 6-23-1A, Opp. VUDA Park, Beach Road, East Point :olony, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam-s3O017.

¶28

Smt. P. Ratnavat ri, w/o Sri P. somanadha Rao, Resident of Door No. 6-23-1A, Opp: VUDA F ark, Beach Road, East Point colony, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam-t 3001 7.

¶29

Sri D. Nagendra Kumar, S/o Sri D. Veeru Naidu, Resident of Door No. 47-10-

¶30

"l3/220, Rednam )laza, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-530016.

¶31

...PETITIONERS

¶32

AND

¶33

Sriram City Unior Finance Ltd, represented by its Zonal Manager, Door No 3-6629, Bhoopal Re ldy Complex, Opposite Bharat Petrol,^'1st Fk;or, Street No 8, Himayat Nagar, llyderabad - 500029.

¶34

Sriram City Unior Finance Ltd, represented by its GPA holder and authorized signatory Sr K.V. Ramana, Door No 3-6-629, Bhoopal Reddy Complex, Opposite Bharat Petrol, 1s Floor, Street No 8, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad - 500029,

¶35

Honorable Sri T. Sundara Ramiah, Door No. 3-6-629, Bhoopal Reddy complex, 4th floor, street I o.B, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

Petition Under \rticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated I the affidavit filed therewilh, the High Court rray be pleased to issue an appropriatr writ order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus alling for records in Arbitration Case No. 800 of 2014 Before the Honorable Arbitral Tribunal Sri. T. Sundara Ramiah, Door No. 3-6-629, Bhoopal Reddy complex, 4th flr or, street No.B, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and consequently set a side proceeding; and the award dated 26-04-2016 passed by the Arbitration Tribunal as illegal arbi rary u nconstitutio na I and without jurisdiction and further relief which is^just and prop( r may kindly be granted by this Hon'ble Court and pass.

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶39

Petition Under iection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in su rport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings in COP 1o.31 of 2018 in the XXIV Commercial Court (City Civil Court) Hyderabad. without fc lowing due process of law pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass,

¶40

Counsel for the Petiti rners : SRI.G.G.V.GOPALA KRISHNA

¶41

Counsel for the Resp rndents : NONE APPEARED

¶42

The Court made the I rllowing COMMON ORDER

¶43

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF .'USTICE^{SATISH CIIANDRA SHARMA} AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KI'MAR^SHAVILI

¶44

WRIT PETITION Nos.524O and 5252 of2022

¶45

COMMON ORDERa Per^{tlle Hon'ble the Chief JusticeSatislt. Ctrndta Shorz.a/}

¶46

Regard being had to the controversy^{involvedin the} aforesaid cases, they are^{heard together and are being} decided by a common order.

¶47

The facts of W.P.No.524O of 2022^{are reproduced as} under:

¶48

W.P.No.524O of 2022 has been filed against^{the order} passed by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge,^{City Civii} Court, Hyderabad, dated 21.10.2021,^{by which the petition} preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration^{and Conciliation} Act, 1996 (for short,^uthe Act'),^{for setting aside the award} dated 26.04.2016 has^{beendismissed'The facts of the case} reveal that an award was^{passed by the Sole Arbitrator in the} present case in Arbitration Case No.664 of^{2Ol4 ald being} aggrieved by the award, a^{petition was preferred under} Section 34 of the Act for^{setting aside the award' The said} petition has been dismissed^{by the learned IX Additional} Chief Judge, City^{Civil Court, Hyderabad.}

¶49

Section 37 of the^{Act reads as under:}

¶50

"37, ApPealable^{orders - (1) Notwithstanding anything} contained in any^{other law for the time beingin force, an appeal} shall lie from the^{following orders (andfrom no others)to the} Court authorised by^{Iawto h€ar appeals from originaldecreesof} the Court^{passing the order, namely:--}

¶51

(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8;

¶52

(b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9;

¶53

¶54

(21 Ap rcal shall a_lso lie to a Court from an order of the arbitral tr trunal--

¶55

(a) accepting the plea referred to in sub_section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or

¶56

(b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17.

¶57

(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under thir section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any ight to appeal to the Supreme Court.,,

¶58

The aJo:esaid provision of law provides for an appeal against ar o^.der setting aside or refusing to set aside the arbitral awar, I under Section 34 of t]re Act.

¶59

Resulta 1fly, as there is a remedy of appeal under Section 37 o1 tlre Act, the writ petitions are dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal.

¶60

The mi;cellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

SD/.T.JAYASREE

¶62

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'

_,.

SA TR

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to SRt. i.G.V.GOPALA KR|SHNA, Advocate IOPUCI 2. Two CD Copies

¶68

One spare copy

HIGH COURT

DATEDI0110212022

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.5240^{AND525iot 2022}

¶74

-'; eE $T* IC
,,l
,:
'l
o)t.
/-
, l.) 1$ FE8 2022
,l
,",.

¶75

DISMISSING^{THE WRI' PETITIONS}

¶76

WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶77

0
,,
W

B.S. Enterprises v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.S. Enterprises v. Sriram City Union Finance 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

Sartaj Pershad Vs The Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Deputy Collector

Kondakalla Rajamani Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Sanskruthi Township Vs The State of Telangana and 10 Others

Suo Moto Vs Union of India

M/s Y Koteswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

B.S. Enterprises Vs Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.