Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S Promising Scholar'S High School vs 1.M/S Educomp Solutions Ltd 2.M/S Edu ... on 12 June, 2017
Author: N. Balayogi
Bench: N. Balayogi
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI APPEAL SUIT No.3407 of 2003 12-06-2017 M/s Promising Scholar's High School..Petitioner 1.M/s Educomp Solutions Ltd 2.M/s Edu Smart Services Pvt Ltd 3.M/s Educomp Solutions Ltd 4. Ms. Sonia Singhani....Respond Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. M.M. Ali Counsel for the respondents: Mr. A.M. Rao <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI C.R.P.No.1771 of 2017 ORDER:
(Per Honble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian) This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of the refusal of the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to grant a stay of all further proceedings pursuant to an order of attachment passed by the Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Heard Mr. M.M. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.M. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner and the respondents had an arbitration agreement. When their commercial relationship became strained, a reference was made to a sole Arbitrator.
4. Contending that the sole Arbitrator had no jurisdiction, the petitioner filed an application under Section 16(2) of Act, 1996.
5. The respondents/claimants also filed an application under Section 17 for passing an order of attachment pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings. The said application was allowed by the sole Arbitrator forcing the petitioner to file a regular appeal in C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 before the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
6. Pending C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 the petitioner sought interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order of attachment passed by the Arbitrator. This application for interim stay in I.A.No.1468 of 2015 was dismissed by the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above revision.
7. In short the present revision arises out of the refusal of the Court below to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to an order of attachment passed by the sole Arbitrator. But today it is stated by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 that the C.M.A itself has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, the question of dealing with the present revision arising out of an interlocutory order passed in C.M.A., does not arise.
8. In any case, the Arbitrator is also understood to have passed an award, way-back in May, 2016. Therefore, the revision as against the refusal of the Court below to grant an interim order, has virtually become infructuous, as the main C.M.A., itself is not on the file of the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
9. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
______________ N. BALAYOGI, J.
12th June, 2017