M.Venkatesham vs M/S.Prajay Engineers Syndicate Ltd on 9 June, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

M.Venkatesham vs M/S.Prajay Engineers Syndicate Ltd on 9 June, 2022

Bench: P. Naveen Rao

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

        CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.375 of 2020

                        Date:09.06.2022

Between:

M. Venkatesham, S/o. Sri M. Balaraja,
Aged about 54 yrs, Occ: Business,
R/o. H.No.16-2-740/75/78, V.K.Dage Nagar,
Gaddiannaram, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad.

                                               .....Appellant

     And

M/s. Prajay Engineers Syndicate Ltd.,
Registered Office at 8-2-293/82/a/1091-A,
Road No.41, Jublihills Co. operative Society,
Hyderabad-500033, Rep by its., Executive Directors,
Sri D. Vijay Sen Reddy, S/o. Late Sri D.S.P.Reddy,
Aged about 62 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.1-1-380/11,
Ashoknagar, Hyderabad and others.


                                                .....Respondents




The Court made the following:
                                     -2-




              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU


         CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.375 of 2020

ORDER:

(Per Hon'ble P. Naveen Rao, J) Heard Sri G.Rajkumar, learned counsel for appellant, and Sri Mittapally Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appellant herein filed application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act, 1996'), praying to grant injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property. It was contended that as per the terms of agreement, if there is a dispute, the dispute can be resolved by referring to an Arbitrator and pending reference to Arbitrator, the appellant sought for the above interlocutory protection under Section 9 of the Act, 1996. The said application was registered as A.O.P.No.230 of 2014 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The trial Court noticed that even by the time the application came up for consideration in January, 2020, no Arbitrator was appointed. Learned counsel for appellant, fairly submits that even by now no Arbitrator is appointed.

-3-

3. Section 9 of the Act, 1996, envisages granting of interim protection pending appointment of an Arbitrator. It is a stop gap arrangement to protect the interest of the aggrieved person till an Arbitrator is appointed. In the facts of this case, even though an application was filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 in the year 2014, praying to grant interlocutory injunction stating that steps are being taken for appointment of an Arbitrator, whereas, even by now no Arbitrator is appointed. By this delay in seeking appointment of Arbitrator, the very object of granting interlocutory protection under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, is lost as rightly noticed by the trial Court. Even otherwise, after eight long years, no such interlocutory protection can be granted, moreover, when so far, no Arbitrator is appointed. In the facts of this case, we see no error in the decision of the lower Court, warranting our interference. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J ____________________________ SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J 8th June, 2022 PT -4- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.375 OF 2020 Date:09.06.2022 PT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court