M/s. S.R. Technologies (Unit-Ii) Vs M/S. India Glycols Limited — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2025)

M/s. S.R. Technologies (Unit-Ii) Vs M/S. India Glycols Limited — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No writ issued and no adjudication of the challenged order; Writ Petition disposed of with a request/direction to the Commercial Court to dispose of C.O.P.No.25 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of prohibition should issue to quash the proceedings in I.A.No.347 of 2023 dated 17.11.2023 in C.O.P.No.25 of 2023 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (referenced with Section 19 of the MSME Act of 2006), pending before Respondent No.2, the Commercial Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Having considered the submissions of both sides, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by requesting the Commercial Court to dispose of C.O.P.No.25 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible, as the matter pertains to the year 2021; the Court did not adjudicate the legality of the order dated 17.11.2023 condoning the delay.

Ratio / Principle

With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of and no order as to costs is made.

Key takeaways

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed (including I.A.No.1 of 2024 for stay).ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Abhinand Kumar Shavili & Tirumaladevi Eada, JJ.), order dated 06.02.2025 in Writ Petition No.15181 of 2024. M/s. S.R. Technologies (Unit-II) sought a writ of prohibition to quash the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, in I.A.No.347 of 2023 in C.O.P.No.25 of 2023, whereby delay in M/s. India Glycols Limited's Section 34 petition (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) against the MSEFC Medchal-Malkajgiri award dated 28.10.2021 was condoned, allegedly contrary to Section 34(3). Prior rounds: W.P.No.16918 of 2022 allowed 14.09.2022; petitioner's W.A.No.734 of 2022 allowed 21.03.2023 reversing it; respondent's S.L.P.(C) No.9899 of 2023 dismissed 04.05.2023 with liberty to pursue the Section 34 challenge and the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court did not adjudicate the merits; it disposed of the writ petition requesting the Commercial Court to decide C.O.P.No.25 of 2023 expeditiously (matter of 2021 vintage), with no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous applications.

[^344s I

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE}

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE ABHTNANDKUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALADEVIEADA}

WRIT PETITION^{NO:15181OF 2024}

Between:

M/s. S.R. Technologies^{(Unit-ll), Plot No'102,^ S'V C'l'E''} Jeed imetla, UyO.rJuuO-SoO 055.^{depres'ent by its Proprietor,Y Balaji Balram} Singh

...PETITIONER

AND

M/s. lndia Glycols^{Limited,A company incorporated under Companies Act'} ' itiso, niring'its nead offile ai ptcit No. 28, Sector 126, Noida, Gauthambudh rlallr, uiiat-^{pii Jesh-zO t sO+,Representedby thei r a utho rizedsignato ry} Peter Paul.

Z. tii,:pieiiOing^{Officer,The courtof the Special Judg.e for Trial and Disposalof} -' Commercial bisputes- Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar'

...RES'ONDENTS

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High courtmaybe} pleasedtoissueanyappropriateWrit,orderordirection'inthenatureofWritof prohibition to quash.the proceedings ln lA 347t2023^{Dated17-1 1- 2023 in coP} 25t2023 U/s. 34^{0f the Arbitrationand conciliation Act of 2006 Rl/w. Section 19 0f} the MSME Act^{of 2006, before the Respondent No.2, as being perverse'} unconstitutional'arbitraryandinviolationofthePrinciplesofNaturalJustice.

-J,

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Se,:tion^'1 51 CPC^praying that^{in the clrcumstattces statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to STAY} the^{proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 in COP25 of 2023 on the file of The} court of the^{Special Judgefor Trial and Disposalof Commercial Disputes-R.anga} reddy District, at LB nagar,^{as the said violatesthe rights of petitione'.}

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI GOLLAKOTA SATYA JAGANNATH} Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1:SRI M.VENKANNA,SENIORCOUNSEL FOR} SRI GURRALA ARUN

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2:} -

The Court made the following: ORDER

I

:'.

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} AND

THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALADEVI EADA} Writ Petit^{ion No.15181 qf2o24}

ORDER: Pet^{ttLe Hon'ble Si Justice Abhitlc.ndKumar Stauili)}

This^{Writ Petition is frled challengingthe order dated} L7.ll.2o23,passed^{in I'A'No'347of 2023 in C'O'P'No'25} of 2023^{by the Special Judge for Trial and Dispos4l of} Commercial^{Disputes,Ranga Reddy District (for short, .the} Commercial^Court')'

2.^{Heard Sri G'Satya Jagannath' learnedcounsel} appearing^{for the petitioner and Sri M' Venkanna'learned} Senior^{Counsel appearing for the respondents'}

t earned^{counsel appearingfor the petitioner had} ' tted' 28'lO'2O21 contended^{that aggrievedby the award' oa} passed^{bY theMicro and Small EnterprlseFacilitation} Council,^{Medchal-Malkajgiri (MSEFC)'respondent No'l}

has lrled^{C'O'P'No'25 of2023 under Section 34of} Arbitration^{and ConciliationAct' 1996 (for short''the ActJ} before^{the Commercial Court' Learnedcounsel for the}

that along^with petitioner^{had furthercontended}

2

A^(S,.J & ETD,J^{'</sup> \ ? i 518 t-_2024}

C.O.P.No.25 of 2023, respondent No.1 has zllso hled I.A.No.347 of 2023 to condone the delay in preferring the petition, which is contrary to Section 34 (3) of Albitration and Conciiiation Act. The Commercial Court hasr allowed the said I.r. and permitted respondent No. _ to file C.O.P.No.2S ctf 2023 under Section 34 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the said: petition cannot be entertained beyond 11,10 days. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order dated 17.11.2023, passed in LA.No.347 of 2023 in C.O.P.No.25 of 2023 by the Commerr'ial Court.

\

On the other hand, learned Senior Cour:sel had contended ltrat respondent No. 1 was pursuing his remedies by challenging the award, dated 28.1O 2O2l in W.P.No.169 18 of 2022 and the said Writ Petition was allowed vide^,order, dated 14.09.2022. Challenging the said orders^'passe:d by the learned Single Judge 1n W.P.No.1691B of 2022, the petitioner has preferred W..4,.No.734 c'| 2022 and the said Writ Appeal was allowed

I

AKS,J & ETD,J \tp r5t8l 2024

3

I t

-7.

vide order, dated 21.03.2023 by setting aside the order, dated 14.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.16918 of 2022. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in allowing the Writ Appeal, respondent No.1 has carried out the matter to the Honourable Supreme Court by hling S.L.P. (c) No.9899 of 2023, and the said S.L.P. was dismissed on 04.05.2023 by giving liberty to respondent No.1 to challenge the award, dated 28. 1O.2O2I under Section 34 of the Act, since he was pr-rrsuing his remedies bonafidely in a wrong forum. The benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was extended in favour of respondent No.1. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

This Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties, is of the view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of requesting the Commercial Court to AS dispose of C.O.P.No.25 of 2023 as expeditiously possible, as the matter pertains to the year 2021.

With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to^costs.

"tl

I.I(S,J & ETD,J tp t5181 2024

4

As a sr:quel, miscellaneous applications prending if

any, shall sta.nd closed.

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR

To

//TRUE COPYII

\

slc TION OFFICER

Ihe Presiding officer, T-he court of the special .ruoge # rriat a r .rd Disposa r of ^^{CommercialPL.pttrgl- E.qlggleddy Disiict, at Le "Nlsir. . - v veivt?vvsv} 2. ONE CC tO SRI GOLLAKOTA SATYA JAGANNATH, RTVOCATC I()PUCI

One CC to SRI G{JRRALA ARUN, Advocate tOpUCl

Two CD Copies

PSK.

GJP u-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610212025

ORDER

WP.No.15181 of 2024

1 ,-1E S Ia 1 (
(
,lio 1 t APB 2025
t^
;
o
+,'., f Cgr:-
(4-rr<br>

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

q'4
rq 5