Allowed

Corporation Medical College and Hospital v. M/S. Sai Pharmacy (Wholesale and Retail)

Telangana HC18 Jul 2023CRP/2034/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, the High Court of Telangana disposed of a revision filed by the Employee State Insurance Corporation challenging an arbitral award. The petitioner, unable to lodge security for execution within the stipulated time due to financial constraints, sought an extension. The court granted an additional ten days to comply with the lower court's order regardi

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted an additional ten days to comply with the order of the Court below to deposit security for the execution of the arbitral award, with no further extension allowed.

Corporation Medical College and Hospital Vs M/S… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

IN HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY HE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISI ON PETI ON NO: 2034 oF 2023

¶7

Petition Under Article 227 constitution of lndia against the order dated 14-03.2023, in l.A. No. 960 of 2021 in ARBop No. 90 of 2021 on the fite of the court of the X-Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court at Hyderabad. Between:

¶8

M/s. Employee state rnsurance corporation Medicar coflege And Hospitar, Represented by_ its^prof M. Madhu sudhan occ. Asiisiint Direcior in esi rrrr"[it]i College, O/o. ESt Medical College, Sanatn Nagar, H-ydL;Oaa.

¶9

...REVISION PETITIONEFUPETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Yl^s: .sl]|I4$MACI0,y.Ho!.ESALE^{ANDRETA|L), Representedby its} 31191, Propnetor :19?l!9 c. Sriram Reddy, : 1,3nd^z, l$^roy S/o. G.^{g rnor,-oiamon6'} Subba Reddy, Having^cbrn'pr-e,, its^n,ji, office^N;'s; i't O.f.fo.f -^{;' "'} uorony, uhoodevi Nagar, Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Distiict.

¶12

2 HONOURABLE JUSTTCE B. PRAKASH RAo (Sore Arbitrator), Former Judoe of High court for the state of.Terangana at t-ryderaoao. nyo. rili r.16'i oos,"* Pegasus -A. Meenakshi Sky Lounge, Kothaguda. Hyderabad_ S00OB4.

¶13

( RESPONDENT NO.2 tS NOT NECESSARY pARTy)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the-affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in A.R.B.o.p No. 90 of 2021 on the file of the X Additionat chief Judge, city civir court at: Hyderabad pending disposar of the above revision.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. RAVINDER REDDY MUppU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE TIIE^{ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE} AND THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶21

CIVIL^{REvIsIoNPETITIQ{N-q .293Lo-E2023}

¶22

ORAL ORDERi \lPr l!a!t-bt" Ile^{ArlsLs-e!44,!-ulttc4}

¶23

'l'his Civil Revision Petition is hled^{aggricvcdby the order} ,l.rtcci 14.03.2023^{passc:d in I.A Nti 960 oi ZOZ\ in A.R [] O l)'No()0} : ;^{', 1)} I by thr:^{X-Additional Chicl} 'ludge'^{City Oivil Court at}

¶24

tlczrrd Sri [?avindcr Rcddy^{Muppu,thc learrrcdCourtscitbr}

¶25

1,,^{'. .rIlir}

¶26

:3. Lcarncd^{Counsel f<rr the pctiLit.rr-rerhad contcndedthal} lrctrtitrner^{has filed O.P'No 90 of2021 aggrieved bv the Award} .l:1tcd I^q .()7^{.2021passcd b1' thc Art-'itratorinilC()4 of 2O2O'} Pctitiorrer^{has also filcdI A'No 96O ol 2O2'l-inthc said A R B'O P''} seekirrg stay^{of the Arvard anci the X- Adctitional Chiet Judgc'CiLy} Lljvil Cr.rurt^{at ll1'dcrahacl u'as plt:nsccl to st'a! thc opcratiorr rll thc} 1t.,n,arci subjr:ct^{to the conditkrrrol pr':L!lioncrtleptlsit ing tis 30 ['erkhs} or! or be fore^{27.C2.2023- Thereallcr,clut: [o finarl':ial <;onstrainls'} pt:Litioner c(,uld^{not rlcposit Rs'30Lal<hs as ordcrcd blthc Court} br:lotl,^{lnltrosc sel o[ c ircurrStal.rccS, pct,it-jon(]rhasrnove<]at-t} aoolir:ation^{56gtkingcxtensiort of timc b1' anotht:rfoLrr lt'eckszrnd} /

¶27

') l.lr \4, .. R Ii t\t, l cRI) ll).1 ; iol.l

¶28

[hc Court lrclo* *.hrLrr r,.t:.rclr:ring the lina,cra] coltstrai,tts oI thc pctitroncr-. h:rs clisrrrrs.;t,cl the said 1.A., vrdc order cated 14.O3.2023. Aggrit.r,r:rl l^ rlrc sarne, petitioner has lile<l the prcsent civil r,:rrisiol.t pclit r, .t

¶29

4' I-earrrccl c.rlrs.r 1.r' rrrc pctitioncr had conlended thaLt if another ten drLys timc- rs qr -rn rc(l ro thc petitioner, it wouid contpllr thc order passcd bY tlt,- r rr l)rlow in I.A.No.96O of :2021 in A.l?.B.O.P.No.9O ot 20) I d;riL.r Ll t .O1.2023.

¶30

'lhis Clourt havins consicler.t:d the said submissions, is of :he view that since pclrtionr:r r oLrlrl rrot pay the amount as directcd by the Court belou, lhc c,r,rds ,11'lrrsricc rvould meet, if another ten (lO) days time is gr.anLccl to tlrr:, ltetitioner to comply with the order daLed 24.O1.2O;,3 passed ir' rJrt: Court below in I.A.No.960 o{ 20121 in A.R.B.O.P.No 90 of 2021

¶31

With l.he abo.r,e dirccrlirir-r, tl.re Clvil Revision petition rs disposed of dire< ting the p' Lrt,,)n{.r to comply with the order dated 24.O1.2023 passed ir.r l.A.No ()60 ot 2O2L in A.R.B.O.p.No.90 of 2027 withrn ten (10) dar, s frorn l.oday. However, it is made clear that no further c>:tension o[ rinrt: u,ill be granted to comply wilh tht: order passed by I re Court bclorr. No costs.

¶32

¶33

HAC,-] & RRN, ] cRP -to.] r 2023

¶34

::-1::

¶35

As a sequcl, misccllaneous^{applical-ronspcnding if any in}

¶36

this Civil Rcvisior-t Pctition, shall stand^closed.

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

The X-Additional^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad}

¶42

One CC to SRl.^{RAVINDER REDDY MUPPU,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶43

Two CD CoPies

DLy'

HIGH COURT

AKS,J &

RRN,J

DATED:1810712023

5fa1.
{ *E
q
1
B 1$ lN 1u1 (
t'
l ossNAIC$99

¶51

ORAL ORDER

¶52

CRP.No.2034^{of 2023}

¶53

CRP IS DISPOSED^OF

¶54

€

Corporation Medical College and Hospital v. M/S. Sai Pharmacy (Wholesale and Retail)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Corporation Medical College and Hospital v. M/S. Sai Pharmacy (Wholesale and Retail)

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

Union of India Vs Md.Ibrahim

Bhukya Sai Praveen Vs The State of Telangana

V. Subba Rao, S/o.v. Seshagiri Rao, Vs The Union of India

Mohd. lmran Ali Vs The Ts Residential Educational Society

Sri.R.Nagendra Naik Vs Reserve Bank of India

The Chief General Manager and 3 others Vs Mekala Venkata Ramana