Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. SUBHASH REDDY & A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, JJ.
Potlabathuni Srikanth & Others - Appellant
Versus
Shriram City Union Finance Limited & Others – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1340, 1779, 1533, 2140 & 2841 of 2015
Decided on : 01-10-2015
Andhra Pradesh Arbitration Rules 2000 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 2(1) - Arbitration Agreement - Arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties arbitrator has passed the award, for a sum of Rs.3,52,562/- with future interest at 30% per annum for each defaulted from the date of reference of the claim till realization in full with costs of Rs.6,132/-Enforcing the said award, the decree holder filed E.P. No.50 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Guntur District. During pendency of the proceedings, revision petitioner filed C.F.R. No.2546 of 2014 under Section 47 of CPC, questioning of the award. In the said application, the very appointment of arbitrator, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 therein, was questioned on the ground that the arbitrator has not given his consent as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the other ground raised by him was that the arbitrator did not adhere to the procedure maintained by the provisions of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act learned Senior Civil Judge, placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in held that the objections raised by the revision petitioner are unsustainable and, therefore, rejected the application. Assailing the same, this revision is filed –Held, A survey of decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts of various States including our High Court, referred to hereinabove, thus, makes it clear that the “Court” referred to in Sections 34 and 36 of the Act is the “Court” as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and, thus, in unmistakable terms refers to a “District Court”, but not the character of a grade inferior to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction; as not only we are fortified in arriving at such a conclusion by the decisions in Case Spinners Limited’s Case (Supra 4), Case (Supra 18), Case Constructions’ Case Builders Private Limited’s Case a n d = Case (Supra 10), in which, provisions of Section 36 of the Act in relation to the applications to enforce the award have been directly dealt with, but also in view of the very mandate of Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Arbitration Rules 2000, framed under the Act by this Court. Though, it is superfluous to mention again, we would like to mention that in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, attention of the Courts as to existence of Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Arbitration Rules 2000, was not drawn, which, perhaps, lead to rendering the judgments with the meaning of the word “Court” occurring in of the Act, something different from the word “Court” as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act by interpreting the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of the “Courts” as classified in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972. For the aforesaid reasons, it is obvious that the learned Senior Civil Judges Courts of have no inherent jurisdiction to deal with the applications filed under Section 36 of the Act and consequently entertaining the EPs by those Courts is without authority and, therefore, the orders impugned are hereby set aside by giving liberty to respondent No.1 to invoke the jurisdiction of the proper Court – Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.
A. Shankar Narayana
1. Since point of law is common in all these revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Aggrieved of the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge of Mangalagiri, Peddapuram, Gajuwaka and Chittoor, respectively, these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the respective judgment-debtor(s) in C.F.R. No.2546 of 2014 in E.P. No.50 of 2014, C.F.R. No.2548 of 2014 in E.P. No.42 of 2014, E.P. No.31 of 2013, E.P. No.115 of 2013 and E.P. No.61 of 2012, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), mainly, on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction in view of definition of ‘Court’ as envisaged under Section 2(1)(e) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’).
C.R.P. No.1340 of 2015:
3. (a) The revision petitioner herein is petitioner -judgment-debtor No.3 in C.F.R. No.2546 of 2014 in E.P. No.50 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, and respondent No.3 in A.O.P. No.374 of 2012.
(b) The decree-holder viz., Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Mangalagiri Branch, through its authorized representative, filed A.O.P. No.374 of 2012 invoking the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties.
(c) The arbitrator has passed the award, dated 16-09-2013, for a sum of Rs.3,52,562/- with future interest at 30% per annum for each defaulted installment from the date of reference of the claim till realization in full with costs of Rs.6,132/-.
(d) Enforcing the said award, the decree holder filed E.P. No.50 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. During pendency of the proceedings, revision petitioner (judgment-debtor No.3) filed C.F.R. No.2546 of 2014 under Section 47 of CPC, questioning executability of the award. In the said application, the very appointment of arbitrator, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 therein, was questioned on the ground that the arbitrator has not given his consent as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act. The other ground raised by him was that the arbitrator did not adhere to the procedure maintained by the provisions of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act.
(e) The learned Senior Civil Judge, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vasudev Dhanjbhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman (AIR 1970 SC 1475) held that the objections raised by the revision petitioner are unsustainable and, therefore, rejected the application. Assailing the same, this revision is filed.
C.R.P. No.1779 of 2015:
4. (a) This revision is filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor No.1 in C.F.R. No.2548 of 2014 in E.P. No.42 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, and respondent No.1 in A.O.P. No.260 of 2012.
(b) The decree-holder viz., Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Mangalagiri Branch, through its authorized representative, filed A.O.P. No.260 of 2012 invoking the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties.
(c) The arbitrator has passed the award, dated 17-09-2013, for a sum of Rs.3,36,182/- with future interest at 30% per annum for each defaulted installment from the date of reference of the claim till realization in full with costs of Rs.5,968/-.
(d) Enforcing the award, the decree-holder filed E.P. No.42 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. During pendency of the proceedings, judgment debtor No.1 filed C.F.R. No.2548 of 2014 under Section 47 of CPC, objecting to executability of the award passed by the arbitrator.
(e) The learned Senior Civil Judge, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vasudev Dhanjbhai Modi’s Case (Supra 1) held that the objections raised by the revision petitioner (judgment debtor No.1) are unsustainable and consequently, rejected the application in limini. Assailing the same, this revision is filed.
C.R.P. No.1533 of 2015:
5. (a) Assailing the order, dated 10-02-2015, in E.P. No.31 of 2013 in A.R.C. No.1045 of 2011,
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
