SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(AP) 93

High Court of Andhra Pradesh
V. ESWARAIAH & N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
Puligujju Vasantha Rao
Versus
M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Bhadrachalam, Represented by its Authorised Signatory & Another
Civil Revision Petition No.3183 of 2012
Decided On : 13-02-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P.V. Krishnamachary, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Maheswara Rao, Kuncheam, Advocate.

Headnote:A.P. Agency Rules 1924 - Rule 35 - Execution of Arbitral award -- Award is to be forwarded to Agent to State Government for execution and before Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) - Impugned order quashed with directions.

Judgment :

V. Eswaraiah, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor no.1 submits that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction has not been extended to the Scheduled Agency Areas and, therefore, the execution petition filed for execution of the arbitration Award of the Arbitral Tribunal by the 1st respondent/Award holder in EP No.133 of 2012 in Arbitration Case No.29 of 2011 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, is not maintainable. It is further stated that as per Rule 35 of the AP Agencies Rules and also as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, the person in whose favour a decree, order or judgment is passed by the Court out side the agency tracts, the same shall be forwarded to the Agent to the State Government for execution.

3. In view of the above, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/Award Holder seeks permission to file a petition before the appropriate Forum for execution of the arbitration award.

4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed in E.P.No.133 of 2012 in Arbitration Case No.29 of 2011 is set aside with liberty to the 1st respondent/Award Holder to proceed against the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.1 before appropriate Forum. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Revision, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top