Dismissed

Praveen Gujja v. M/S Shriram city union finance limited

Telangana HC27 Feb 2025CRP/67/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition challenging a sale notice issued under an arbitration award in execution proceedings. The High Court rejected objections regarding the status of guarantors and the validity of the award, finding no illegality in the issuance of the sale notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned sale notice was upheld, and the civil revision petition was dismissed without costs.

Praveen Gujja Vs M/S Shriram city union finance… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

432171

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 67 OF 2025

¶8

Petition under Articre 227 of the constitution of rndia, Aggrieved by the order dated 04tootzo24 in E p No T of 2021 in ARB.No.111 or-z'ore on tnl iie of Honourable lll ADDITTONAL DtSTR|CT JUDGE AT NTZAMABAD.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Praveen Gujja, sio laxmi narayaa, age. 35 years, occ. Bussiness, Rl/o H.No.3^^{10-355,vivekananda Nagar cotony, Nyalakal road, shivaji NaagarNizamaOad} 2 Gujjl Laxminarayana, S/o Narsimaiah age. 65 yearsl oc". retired employee,R/o.No.R/o H.No.3-.10-355, vivekaninda Nagar cotony, ttyatatat road, shivaji Naagar Nizamabad.

¶11

Gu.[a Shiva Prasad, S/o Narsaiahh age. 56 years, oc._ govt.Teacher,R/o H.No.'1-1-304l111306. singha Resideniy, Sailirupa Nagar] Vinry"fn"irr, Nizamabad.

¶12

...Petitioner/s

¶13

AND

¶14

1 M/s shriram city union finance rimrted, Nizamabad-rts branch, now present r9p Uy its augthorized signatory and power of attoreny hold'er Mr. A Mallikharjun s/o srinivas, age-36 years, senior Divisionar' Mangaer r/o N izamabad

¶15

...RespondenUs

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2O2S

¶17

Petition under section 1 51 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petitinn, the High cout;;t-b; pleased to stav of ail furrher proceedings in E.p.No.7 of 202t ii ARB.No.iii oi 2018 on the Fire of Honorabre ilr ADDTTONAL DrsrRrcr JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD-

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. G. Rajeshwar Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. N. Srikanth Goud The Court made the following : ORDER

¶19

I I I I i I i: n t

¶20

i I I

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JuSTICE N' TUIIIRAMJT} cwIL REVISIO^{IT PETITIolt No.67 of20Ls_}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Civil^{Revision Petition has been fiied against} the Sale^{Notice, dated04'O6'2024 in E'P'No'7 of 2O2l in} Arbitration^{No.111 of 2018 on the file of the learnedIII} Additional District^{Judge, Nizamabad'}

¶24

2 Heard^{Ms.Shaheena,learned counselrepresenting} Sri G.Rajeshwar^{Rao, learned counsel for revision} petitioners and^{Sri N'SrikanthGoud' Iearned counsel for} the resPondent.

¶25

The revision^{petitionerNo'2 is the Judgrnent Debtor} No.2 in the^{Award passed by the Arbitrat()r Tribunal'} uide Arbittanon^{Case No' 1 I I of 2O 18'}

¶26

The case^{facts in brief are that the respondent-} Company^{in itsfinancebusiness26lv2pr:e<1loan of} Rs. 12,OO,O0O/-^{on 29'O4'2015to the revisi()n petrtloner} No.1. Revision^{petitioner Nos'2 and Istood as} guarantors.^{Accordingly entered into an agreement'} In

¶27

¶28

NTR,J cRP 51 2025

¶29

addition, ttre Revision petitioner No.2 had created securit5r of his prope rLy uide a registered deed, dated 29.O4.2OL5. The revision petitioner No. 1/principle borrower paid an amount of Rs.9,35,OOO/- and neglected to repay the remaining due of Rs. 12,55,O00/_. Whereupon, the respondent-Company initiated arbitration proceedings. The Arbitrator passed the Award against the revision petitioners holding them jointly and severally liable for the claim arnount. Thereafter, the Award was duly transmitted to the Court and in the Execution Petition i.e., E.p.No.7 of 2O2L the respondent-Company sought for attachment and sale of the suit schedule property which was furnished as security, for realization of the amount due. The Executing Court in the proceedings had attached and issued the impugned sale notice, which has been challenged in this revision petition.

¶30

The revision petitioners would contend that while revision petitioner No. I obtained loan, the respondentCompany got the signatures of the revision petitioner ^

NTR,J 3 cRI 67²⁰²⁵

;

Nos.2 and^{3 on printedformats and they nerrer stood as} guarantors.^{F\trttrer, the} respondent-Company intentionally^{initiated the Arbitrationproceerlings within} the^{jurisdiction of Hanamakonda' Warangal'whereas'} the transaction^{and the residence of lhe revislon} petitioners^{is at Nizamabad'The respondent-Company} usuriously^{fixed ttre interest and monthly installments} by clubbing^{the principle and the unpaid amountby} including^{penal intere st @3o/o per month and even} against dishonoured^{cheques'Further} '^{tht respondent-} Company^{obtained ex parte Award and trre Executing} Court, without^{consideringthese aspect:;has issued} impugned^{sale notice' Hence' he prayed for interference'}

¶35

Learned^{counsel for theresponrlent-Company} would submit^{that ExecutingCourt has properlyissued} the sale notice^{and the Arbitratoron prop€r appreciation} of the record.^{The revision petitionerNo' Iavailed loan} and revision^{petitionerNos'2 and 3 stood its Guarantors'} executed^{agreement and the revision1'etitionerNo'2} created security^{of his property under the r-egistered} lt:O \

¶36

. |.'.'1...141; ?z= -

?;-_i..

NTR.J cRP 67²⁰²⁵

and the Arbitrator^{in due proceedingsin the presenceof} the counsel for the^{revision petitioners passed the} Award. Thus, the contention^{that the Award was passed} ex- parte or the^{claims were not considered by the} Arbitrator is improper.^{He further pleadedthat the} Award was appropriately^{implemented by the Executing} Court and after^{due notice to the revisionpetitioners and} proceedings of the^{sale notice have been issued' As such,} there is no illegality^{in issuance of the sale notice'He} further pleaded that^{though the revision petitioners} disputed the Arbitration^{Award' no appealhas been hled} so far. Therefore,^{no tenable ground has been madeout} in the revision^{petition for interference'}

¶41

I have^{perusedthe material on record'}

¶42

At the outset,^{the Arbitration Award itself is} indicating that^{the revisionpetitioners appearedbefore} the Arbitrator^{throughtheir counsel Mr'T'Narender} Reddy. Further, the^{statements that the revision} petitioners executed^{agreement and therevision}

t I

l ]'tt

NTRJ 5 cRP_67-2025

petitioner^{Nos'2 and 3 stoodas guarantors end revision} petitionerNo.2createdsecurityofhispropertyandthe loan^{avajledby the revision petitionerNo' 1 are not in} dispute.^{However, the contention is that thr: signatures} of the^{revision petitioners have been obtained by the} respondent-Company^{on printed formats as 'vitnesses'}

¶47

g. Upon^{consideringthe unrebutted plea'ling that the} revision^{petitioner No'2 had created security of the} property^{under a registered deed and aftel passingthe} Award^{and due communicationto the Executing Court} for attachment^{of the Property' issualceof sale notice' is} found^{proper. In addition'it also in agreement that the} Award,^{basing on which the Executionproceedings were} initiated,^{has not been challengedby the revision} petitioners.^{Thatbeing the position' this ()ourt finds no} illegality^{or tenable reason to say that the impugned sale} noticeisunsrrstainableinanymanner.Ineffect,the challenge^{in revisionpetition shall fail on Inerit'}

¶48

NTRJ cRP 6? 202s

¶49

¶50

For the aforesaid reasons, this Ci'/il^Revision

¶51

Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶52

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶53

pending in this civil rerrision petition shall stand closed.

¶54

SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The lllAdditional District Judge at Nizamabad. 2. One CC to Sri. G. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate. [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N. Srikanth Goud, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies.

¶59

¶60

JS/PSL

¶61

.--

--;n*.*----,:

HIGH COURT

DATED .2710212025

ORDER

r:: -'' .-
I..rf -,: '. '\ 'r q
1 0 SEP 2025

¶69

)

¶70

CRP.No. 67 of 2O25

¶71

THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

ot-t

¶73

Praveen Gujja v. M/S Shriram city union finance limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Gujja v. M/S Shriram city union finance 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

Atchuta Jagadish Chandra Vs Karamsetti Venkata Varaprasada Rao

St.Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society Vs Hotel Santosh Lodge and Restaurant

St. Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society, Secbad Vs Hotel Santosh Lodge and Restaurant, Secbad and Ano

Konda Satyanarayna Vs M.Radhika

V. Dasarathy and Another Vs Sai Samrat Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Mohd Sadiq Vs Smt.K. Annapurna