Dismissed

B.S. Enterprises and 2 others v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. and 2 Others

Telangana HC2 Feb 2022WP/5652/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC against the Special Commercial Court at Hyderabad. The Court held that since an appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the writ petition was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and miscellaneous applications were dismissed. No appeal lies.

B.S. Enterprises and 2 others Vs Sriram City Union Finance… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 56s2 OF 2022

¶10

Between:

¶11

B.S. Enterprises, represented by its Managing 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, Age 49^years, Resident of Door No. 6-23-1A, Opp. VUDA Park, Beach Road, East Point colony, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam-5300'1 7,

¶13

Sri D, Nagendra Kumar, S/o Sri D. Veeru Naidu, Age 54 years, Resident of Door No. 47-10-131220, Rednam Plaza, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-530016.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

1 Sriram City Union Finance Ltd, represented by^jts Zonal Manager, Door No 3-6629, Bhoopal Reddy Complex, Opposite Bharat Pelrol, 1st Floor, Street No 8, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad - 500029.

¶17

2 Sriram City Union 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, 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.8, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order r direction more particularly one in lhe nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for records in Arbitration Case No. 747 of 2014 Before the Honorable Arbitral Tribunal Sri. T. Sundara Ramiah, Door No.3-6-629, Bhoopal Reddy complex 4lh floor, street No.8, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and consequently set aside the proceedings and the award dated 2610412016 passed by the Arbitration Tribunal as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and further relief which is just and proper may kindly be granted by this Honourable Court and^pass

¶21

lA NO: I oF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the afiidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings in COP No. 2299 of 2016 in the lX Commercial Court (City Civil Court) Hyderabad. without following due process of law pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. G GANGA VENU GOPALA KRISHNA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents :^.

¶25

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CIIANDRA SHARMA AND

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No. 5652 of 2022 (,/

¶30

ORDER: eet the Hon'bLe ttu Chiej Jusrrce Saris,, Chand'o sho,ao)

¶31

The present writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Iearned Judge, Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad, dated 24.O8.2O21, by u:hich the petition preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act'), for setting aside the award dated 26.O4.2O 16 has been dismissed. The facts of the case reveal that ar award was passed by the Sole Arbitrator in the present case in Arbitration Case No.747 of 2074 and being oggrieved 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 Judge, Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad.

¶32

Section 37 of the Act reads as under:

¶33

"37. Appealable orders - (I) Notwithstanding anything contained in any olher law for the trme being in force, an appeal shall lie from the following orders (and frorn no others) to the Court authorised by law to heal appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namelyi--

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

1. Appeal shall also lie to a Court ftom an order of the arbitral tribunal--

¶38

(a) acccpiing tltc Ilca I cler.rcci to r.r sub-section (2) or slrb section (3) oI sectron l6; or

¶39

(bl graitinS or..rlrrsing to grant an interjm measure under section 17.

¶40

(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothlng in this section shall affect or take away an'y- right to appeal to the Supreme Court."

¶41

The aforesaid provision of law provides for arr appeal against an order setting aside or refusing to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act.

¶42

Resultantly, as there is a remedy of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, the writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal.

¶43

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶44

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

SD/.V.KAVITHA //TRUE COPY' ASSISTANT REGISTRARt,/ SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

One CC to SRI. G GANGA VENU GOPALA KRISHNA, Advocate [oPUC] 2. Two CD Copies. 3. One Spare Copy. AU BS .p

¶48

HIGH COURT

¶49

DATED:02/0212022

¶50

STATE
I
( <br>t:
2[ rtB t']21
t)

¶51

ORDER

¶52

WP.No.5652 of²⁰²²

¶53

DISMISSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

l9 ssl t- )r--

¶55

B.S. Enterprises and 2 others v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.S. Enterprises and 2 others v. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. and 2 Others

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

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.

The Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences Vs Dr. Devender Banavath

B. Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

National Investigation Agency Vs Manik Shaik