M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs M/s. Sai Rayala Seema Paper Mills Ltd.

¶1

HICH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF IANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE SUIOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE DR.IUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶5

Civil Revision Petition No 73 of2025

¶6

Civil revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of tndia, assailing the order dated 12.12.N24 passed in C.E.P.No.6 of 2024 on the file of the l,rincipal Special Court in the cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposat of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad.

¶7

Betlt een:

¶8

Ivl/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, (A Govt. of India undertaking) R-egional Office, Snehalatha, P.B.No. 45, Greenlands Road, Begumpet, Hy<Ierabad - 500 016, rep. by its Deputy General Manager

¶9

AND

¶10

...Petitionerr/ Petitioner.

¶11

M/s Sai Rayala Seema Paper Mills Ltd, Having its Regd. Office at Plot No. 26, Arnar society . Kavuri hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad , Rep by its Authorized signatory Mr. K.Madhava Nagaraju, Manager Corporate Affairs.

¶12

... Respondent/ Decree Holcler

¶13

IA NO: I Otr 2025

¶14

[)etition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in thc affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleascd to stal'all further proceedings in pursuance of the order passecl in CEP No.6/2024 in Arbitration Application No. 89/2012 dated 12-12-2024 on the file of Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Cornmercial Dispruls5 at Hyderabad, pending disposal of main CRP.

¶15

Counscl for the Petitioner: Smt. A.Anasuya.

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: - -

¶17

l'he. Court macle the following: ORDER

¶18

t

¶19

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICESUJOY PAUL}

¶20

AND

¶21

THE HON'BLE^{DT. JI'ISTICE G. RADIIA RAI{I}

¶22

CRP.N o-73^{of 2O2S}

¶23

ORDER^{(Per Hon'ble SP'J)}

¶24

Smt. A. Anasuya,^{learned counsel for the Petitioner and} sri S. Malla^{Rao. learned counselfor the respondent/caveator,are} heard on^admission

¶25

This Civil Revision^{Petition assailsthe attachmentorder} dated 12.12.2024.

¶26

I

¶27

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submitsthat the basic} Award was^{passedon 25.O8.20 15' This Award was unsuccessfully} challenged bv^{the petitioner by frling an applicationunder Section} 34 of the Arbitratron^{and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the} Act"). The^{Arvard is nou' subjectmatter of challenge beforethis} Court in a^{proceedingltled under Section 37 of the Act registeredas} COMCA.NO.2Oof2O20.lnthesaidCOMCA,thepetitioner'sstay application / applit--ation^{forpre-ponementispending' Itis} submitted that i{^{rnterferenceis not made in ttris CRP' the said} COMCA rvi[[^{renderrnlrttctuous and the petitioner, a Government} undertakin^{g, r.r'ill s u fler i rreparable injury'}

¶28

4 The otl-rer side opposed^{the prayer'}

¶29

2

¶30

On a specifrc query from the Bench, Iearned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that if stay, as prayed for, is granted in the interim application frled in aforesaid COMCA, the petitioner,s present grievance will be redressed. On yet another query from the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly adrnitted that no lunch motion/mention memo was prayed for before the appropriate Bench for urgent hearing of stay application in aforesaid COMCA. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, this is an avoidable piece of litigation. The proper course for the petitioner was to mention the matter in aforesaid COMCA for hearing it on the stay application. While giving that liberty to mention, we find no reason to entertain this parallel litigation, which is unnecessarily filed.

¶31

6 Accordingly, the C.R.P. is disposed of with the libertv

¶32

aforesaid. No costs.

¶33

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand

¶34

closed

¶35

Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶36

ECTION OFFICER