HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Hyderabad in C.E.P.

S.R. No.1762 of 2021 dt.08-09-2021.

2. Heard Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the respondent and Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned Amicus Curiae.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that it is a registered company engaging in the business of manufacturing steel and other allied products and during the year 2017, the respondent has approached the petitioner for purchase of TMT Bars manufactured by it and upon discussion, it was agreed between the parties, that the petitioner company would sell and deliver diverse quantities of steel product and TMT Bars to the respondent company at its site subject to the issuance of purchase order by the respondent company from time to time.

4. During the course of business transactions, the respondent was deemed to pay an amount of Rs.38,23,819.55 ps to the petitioner and gradually, the dues liable to be paid by the respondent-company accumulated to Rs.5,32,43,522/-. As there was a dispute between the parties, the petitioner has invoked arbitration clause and when there was no response from the respondent, Application No.128 of 2019 is filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act, 1996’) before the High Court for the State of Telangana, and the Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide orders dt.25-02-2020, has allowed the application and appointed Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah as sole Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator was pleased to pass award on 19-01-2021 in favour of the petitioner. In spite of the Arbitrator passing award in favour of the petitioner, the respondent was not complying the Award. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 vide COP No.109 of 2019 before the XXIV Additional Chief Judge-cum-Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was numbered as COP No.32 of 2021 and sought interim protection pending Arbitration.

5. When the respondents were not complying the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner has filed Execution Petition under Order 21 Rules 43, 64 and 66 of CPC before the Court at Kukatpally on 17-08-2021, under whose jurisdiction, the respondent company is situated and functioning.

The Court at Kukatpally has returned the EPSR No.6735 of 2021 on 24-08-2021 with an endorsement that “E.P. does not come under the territorial jurisdiction and it is to be filed before the proper Court. Hence, returned.”

6. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed CEP SR No.1762 of 2021 before the Commercial Court, but the Court below vide orders dt.08-09-2021 has returned the CEP SR No.1762 of 2021 with an observation that it should be presented before the proper Court having territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that action of Commercial Court at Hyderabad in not entertaining CEP SR No.1762 of 2021 is without application of mind and it has every jurisdiction to entertain the E.P. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that appropriate orders be passed in the Revision Petition by setting aside the orders of the Commercial Court in COP SR No.1762 of

2021 dt.08-09-2021 and further direct the Commercial Court to entertain the E.P. as it has territorial jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent had contended that as per Section 3 of the Act, 1996, the Commercial Court has no jurisdiction and it has rightly returned the E.P. Therefore, there are no merits in the Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae has contended that Section 2 (e) of the Act, 1996 defines Court which reads as unde