Defendant's revision against rejection of its application for exemption from filing the original arbitration agreement. The court permitted a fresh application before the trial court within fifteen days, to be considered afresh uninfluenced by the impugned order, and disposed of the petition without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3401 J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
CIVIL REVI SION PETITION NO: 4140 oF 2024
Petition filed under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 29.10 2024 oassed in t.n tro. aza oi zb)) rn o.s.No 78 of 2oz1 on the file of the court of the x['Additionar bni,] Lrog", d"it-v-cirir court, secunderabad.
Between:
M/s. Cemcon Track lndushie", B9p pV its Manager Sri Ram Kumar patwa, 8Km Stone,panipat Road, Near rr/unOlini Vrfiag"]6oirnr, Haryane-131306
... Petitioner/petitioner/Defendant
AND
...Respondents/Respondents/plaintiffs
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
stated Petition under in the affidavit Section 'r51 fired in support of cpc of the praying p.tit.n, that the in High the court circumstancesmay -oe glg3sed to stay ail the further proceedings in ci.s.tto. 18 0f 2021 before the Xrl Additional chief Judge, city civir court, Secunderabad during tn" p"nJ"n"y'ot the above referred Civil Revision petition in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Vinita R Chauhan
Counsel for Respondents : None appeared
The Court made the following: ORDER
\ (
THE HONOIIRABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOYPAUL cwIL REVISION PETITION No.414O of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Ms. Vinita R Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
i) The petitioner may file a fresh application seeking exemption on the basis of the aforesaidjudgment of Supreme Court before the trial Court within fifteen days from today, failing which, the right to file such application shall stand forfeited.
2
I
I
\
ii) In that event, the trial Court shall consider the fresh application by taling into account the judgment of the Supreme Court and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, without getting influence by the impugned order dated 29.10.2024.
iii) If application is filed within fifteen days from today, rhe trial Court shall frrst decide the said application before deciding the aspect of closing the right to file written statement.
lnterlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
h SECTI 3 N OFFICER
To,
Njb/ghw
HIGH COURT
DATED:0310112025
ORDER
? T |.!E S l'4
( c
i)i)
2 0 Fi8.2025
t o
.r: ; a!1
CRP.No.4140 of 2024
DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS
5164 W
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for exemption from filing the original arbitration agreement, and what directions should issue.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Cemcon Track Industries Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager Sri Ram Kumar Patwa
Union of India rep. by General Manager South Central Railway
Dy. Chief Engineer/TP, South Central Railway
Sujoy Paul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
