THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4156 and 4220 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.Dhananjaya Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, appears through video conferencing.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the civil revision petitions are heard finally.

3. In C.R.P.No.4156 of 2024, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 19.09.2024 passed in C.E.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.E.P.No.8 of 2024, whereas in C.R.P.No.4220 of 2024, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in C.E.A.No.16 of 2024 in C.E.P.No.8 of 2024 by the Court of the Additional Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, “the Executing Court”). The common issue arises for consideration in these civil revision petitions i.e., with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Executing Court to deal with the execution petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, these civil revision petitions are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

4. Facts leading to filing of these civil revision petitions briefly stated are that the petitioner is the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as, “the judgment debtor”) and is controlled by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The judgment debtor has entered into an agreement on 15.04.2013 with the respondent, namely KPC Projects Limited (hereinafter referred to as, “the decree holder”). Under the aforesaid agreement, the decree holder had agreed to execute the work of construction of buildings at the rates agreed upon and shown in the Schedule A of the agreement. Clause 22 of the agreement provides for settlement of disputes through arbitration. Clause 22.2(c) of the agreement provides that the arbitration proceedings shall be held at Hyderabad, which reads as under:

“22.2(c) Arbitration proceedings shall be held at Hyderabad, India, and the language of the arbitration proceedings and that of all documents and communications between the parties shall be English.”

5. A dispute had arisen between the parties and therefore the arbitral tribunal was constituted. The arbitral tribunal passed an award on 03.12.2022 at Hyderabad by which a sum of Rs.3,17,32,913/- along with interest has been awarded in favour of the decree holder.

6. The judgment debtor did not challenge the award by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”). The award passed in favour of the decree holder has attained finality. Thereafter, the decree holder filed a petition seeking execution of the award dated 03.12.2022 before the Executing Court. The judgment debtor entered appearance and raised an objection that the Court in Hyderabad does not have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the execution petition, as the office as well as assets of the judgment debtor are situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh i.e., beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in Hyderabad.

7. The Executing Court after hearing the parties, by an order dated 19.09.2024, inter alia, held that the venue of arbitration is Hyderabad and the proceedings of the arbitral tribunal were conducted in Hyderabad. It was further held that since the award was passed in Hyderabad in pursuance of the agreement between the parties, therefore the Executing Court, had jurisdiction to deal with the execution petition filed by the decree holder. The Executing Court also directed the judgment debtor to furnish the list of assets in Form No.16A of Appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), within a period of four weeks from the date of the orde