Telangana High Court
M/S Konas Foodcourt On The Rocks Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Olive Bar And Kitchen Pvt. Ltd on 27 June, 2023
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: P. Naveen Rao, Nagesh Bheemapaka
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2967 OF 2022
ORDER :(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka) This revision is filed against the order dated 29.04.2022 in I.A.No.540 of 2021 in C.O.P.No.65 of 2021 by the learned Additional Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad praying to allow the revision by modifying the above order by directing the first respondent to deposit 100% of the amount awarded by the learned arbitrator in his award dated 19.10.2021 and to permit the revision petitioner to withdraw the same.
2. The first respondent in this revision is the claimant before the learned arbitrator and the revision petitioner herein is the respondent before the arbitrator. The parties are referred to as arrayed before the arbitrator.
3. The claimant is a company engaged in the business of running a chain of bars and restaurants with its head quarters in Mumbai. Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited (for Short "APTDCL") now Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited (TSTDCL) is the owner of the land admeasuring 2496 square yards. The respondent and TSTDCL entered into a development and management agreement under a lease agreement dated 29.03.2004 for leasing the land owned by APTDCL for PNR,J & NBK,J 2 CRP 2967 OF 2022 a period of 15 years commencing from March, 2004 till March, 2019. The clause 5 of the lease agreement states that after expiry of the period of lease if the lessor decides to continue the said activities for which the schedule property is being used the lessee would have the first right of refusal on renewal of lease.
4. During the year 2012 the claimant approached the respondent for a sub-contract to run a bar and restaurant under the brand name and style of Oliver Bistro. During negotiations the claimant expressed that it would not be viable for the claimant to enter into an agreement for a period of six years since the main agreement between the respondent and TSTDCL would be expiring in March, 2019 but, the respondent assured the claimant that the respondent was allowed to obtain renewal of lease for a further term of 15 years and also assured for providing an absolute and exclusive right to continue for a further period of 15 years as the claimant was investing several crores of rupees to build, renovate and start the venture at Hyderabad. Pursuant to the deliberations both the parties entered into an agreement known as term sheet dated 01.12.2012. As per clause 8 of the term sheet the sub-contract of the schedule property was valid until March, 2019 and the respondent undertook that on expiry of the parent lease agreement it would make all efforts to seek renewal of the said agreement with APTDCL and upon that the claimant would have absolute and exclusive option to continue the lease for a further period of 15 years on the terms and conditions agreed upon.
PNR,J & NBK,J 3 CRP 2967 OF 2022
5. With the confidence that it would run the business upto 2034, the claimant had invested substantial amounts to set-up bar and restaurant and banquet facility in the scheduled property. In consonance with development and management agreement dated 27.03.2004 the respondent approached APTDCL seeking for appointment as sub-contractor and the latter permitted the same by its letter dated 05.02.2013. Both the parties entered into a supplementary agreement dated 10.01.2013 and also entered into a business conducting agreement dated 18.01.2013. As per which the term of the agreement would commence from 18.01.2013 and remain valid till March, 2019 and after the respondent secures renewal the claimant would have absolute and exclusive option to continue for further renewed period on the same terms and conditions subject to escalation of the monthly conducting fee as may be agreed mutually. It was also agreed between the parties that upon the expiry of agreement dated 18.01.2013 subject to renewal of parent lease agreement dated 29.03.2004 the parties should execute a fresh business conducting agreement for renewal period on the same terms and conditions as agreed under clause 7.
6. The respondent handed over the physical possession of the schedule property to the claimant as per the terms of the agreement dated 18.01.2013. As per clause 20 (a) of the said agreement the claimant alone was authorized to renovate, build the property items and conduct business of bar and the respondent should not interfere, involve, supervise any of the business activities of the claimant but, should ensure peaceful conduct of PNR,J & NBK,J 4 CRP 2967 OF 2022 business without causing interruption besides being liable to indemnify the claimant if the latter suffered any damage as a consequence of any act of the respondent. The business conducting agreement dated 18.01.2013 provided a lock in period of 12 months. If the claimant pre-determines this agreement during lock in period it should pay the rent upto June, 2014. On the other hand if the respondent pre-determines the agreement except for non-payment of rent, the respondent should pay damages which shall be equivalent to five years gross revenue generated by the claimant in the said premises.
7. Further, Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited (for Short "TSTDCL") proposed to call for fresh allotment with enhanced rent basing on the market value together with escalation of rent by 5% yearly till fresh renewal. Though the claimant was paying the enhanced conducting fee, the respondent demanded the claimant an exorbitant sum of Rs.20,00,000/- per month as enhanced rent for extended lease period starting from 01.04.2019 until May, 2019 and to relinquish 1/3rd of the schedule property in order to give that portion to third party for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- which are contrary to original contractual terms and conditions. The respondent company started threatening the manager and staff of the claimant demanding enhanced rents. Upon which the claimant issued a notice dated 18.05.2019 asking the respondent company to comply with the terms and conditions of the business conducting agreement dated 18.01.2013 failing which the claimant would invoke arbitration clause.
PNR,J & NBK,J 5 CRP 2967 OF 2022
8. Upon the assurance by the respondent that the renewal is automatic, the claimant sought permission from the respondent to build a dismountable glass structure, obtained microbrewery license, has invested several crores of rupees and started a microbrewery in the schedule property namely "THE HOPPERY BY OLIVE" from 2017. The claimant has been paying the business conducting fee as per the contract dated 18.01.2013 and also willing to pay a revised rate of Rs.9,35,747/- including GST per month from 01.08.2019 to 09.09.2020, the first year which is inclusive of 5% escalation towards annual enhancement of conducting fee and enhanced licensed fee being paid by the respondent to the TSTDCL under the deed of license dated 31.10.2019.
9. As the Managing Director of the respondent company started threatening the claimant company, the claimant filed a criminal case dated 19.05.2019 and also filed a petition before the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide Arbitration O.P.No.59 of 2019 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking injunction which was transferred to XXIV Additional Chief Judge Court and re-numbered as A.O.P.No.59 of 2019 where under an interim injunction dated 24.05.2019 was granted. The claimant addressed letter dated 09.09.2019 to the respondent company stating that it intended to move back to the original conducting fee as per business conducting agreement dated 18.01.2013 but, there was no response. The claimant further addressed a letter dated 05.10.2019 to the respondent company to execute a PNR,J & NBK,J 6 CRP 2967 OF 2022 fresh business conducting agreement. However, the respondent issued notice dated 24.10.2019 calling upon the claimant to vacate the schedule property stating that TSTDCL has not renewed parent lease agreement as fresh proposals were called by TSTDCL for the lease of scheduled property and their relationship with TSTDCL has come to an end.
10. The claimant obtained information under RTI Act from the TSTDCL, Hyderabad whereby it came to the notice of the claimant that the respondent company was considering to be the preferred licensee in respect of the scheduled property for a period of 15 years by the TSTDCL under letter dated 05.09.2019. The respondent company entered into a deed of license agreement dated 31.10.2019 with TSTDCL in respect of the scheduled property for a period of 15 years. But, the respondent with a malafide intention is claiming that the deed of license is a fresh license which has nothing to do with the parent lease agreement dated 19.03.2004 in order to avoid renewal of business conducting agreement dated 18.01.2013.
11. As the respondent company started creating nuisance the claimant lodged complaint before Madhapur Police but, they refused to receive the complaint on the ground that it is a case of civil nature. The claimant filed A.O.P.No.119 of 2019 in the Court of XXIV Additional Chief Judge and the court allowed the application by restraining the respondent and all persons on its behalf from interfering with the business and possession of the claimant over the schedule property. The respondent could not terminate PNR,J & NBK,J 7 CRP 2967 OF 2022 the agreement dated 18.01.2013 in view of clause 24 of the business conducting agreement. Due to all these situations the claimant issued a notice dated 08.11.2019 invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement and also filed arbitration application No.13 of 2020 before the High Court.
12. Due to Covid-19 pandemic the government issued G.O.No.4 of 2020, dated 14.03.2020 directing closure of public places such as restaurants, pubs and bars until further orders. However, the respondent issued a legal notice dated 07.07.2020 stating that the agreement between the claimant and respondent was deemed to have been terminated for non-payment of rental amounts during the pandemic period. This was denied by the claimant. The claimant has paid conducting fee regularly upto March, 2020 and from September, 2020. While so the TSTDCL threatened to shut the bar and restaurant as the respondent committed default in payment of license fee from March, 2020 to September, 2020. Due to the said threats the claimant filed W.P.No.19139 of 2020 before the High Court. The Hon'ble High Court passed interim order of status-quo and directed the claimant to deposit 25 lakhs with TSTDCL. The claimant complied the said direction
13. The claimant raised a dispute in this regard and the respondent has raised a counter claim. Upon considering the facts and also evidence and documents submitted by the claimant and the respondents therein, the learned arbitrator observed that the claims raised by the claimant in the statement of claim are to be disallowed except the claim No.4. Claim No.4 PNR,J & NBK,J 8 CRP 2967 OF 2022 was allowed with interest @12% till realization. The counter claim No.1 is allowed reducing the claim to Rs.16,00,000/- instead of Rs.18,00,000/- carrying an interest @ 12% per annum till realization instead of 24% per annum. The learned arbitrator also awarded under counter claim No.2 a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- instead of Rs.6,00,000/- per month carrying an interest of 12% per annum instead of 24% per annum till realization. And so also the learned arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-per month under counter claim No.3 instead of Rs12,00,000/- carrying interest @ 12% per annum instead of 24% per annum till realization. The learned arbitrator rejected the claim of damages. While passing the above award the learned arbitrator fixed time of four weeks from the date of the award for the payment of the amounts awarded against the claimant and also directed the claimant to remove the machinery, equipment, furniture installed by the claimant and ensure resumption of physical possession of the scheduled premises by the respondent.
14. Against the award passed by the learned arbitrator, the claimant in the arbitration proceedings filed C.O.P.No.65 of 2021. He has also filed I.A.No.540 of 2021 in C.O.P.No.65 of 2021 under Section 36 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for Short "the Act") seeking to stay the operation and enforcement of award dated 19.10.2021 during the pendency of C.O.P.No.65 of 2021. The learned judge for the trial and disposal of commercial disputes passed order dated 29.04.2022 in I.A.No.540 of 2021 allowing the application filed by the claimant M/s. Olive PNR,J & NBK,J 9 CRP 2967 OF 2022 Bar and Kitchen Private Limited granting stay of execution of the award passed by the learned arbitrator on condition of depositing 50% of the amount awarded by the learned arbitrator with the interest calculated till the date of the order passed by the learned commercial court within a period of three months from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby this revision is filed.
15. We have heard Sri V. Murali Manoher, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent and Sri A. Venkatesh, learned senior counsel, representing M/s. Anindita S Chander for the 1st respondent/claimant.
16. According to learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent the arbitrator erroneously allowed the claim of the claimant and the said award is illegal, unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary. He would submit that he has good reputation and that he entered into an agreement with TSTDCL dated 29.03.2004 under which the respondent took lease of 2496 square yards of property for a period of 15 years. As per the agreement between the respondent and TSTDCL, the respondent has first right of refusal for renewal of the lease.
17. In the year 2012, the respondent and claimant had negotiations regarding sub lease of the property. During the negotiations the respondent informed that as per clause-V of the parent lease it has right of first refusal for renewal of lease and it can get the parent lease renewed.
PNR,J & NBK,J 10 CRP 2967 OF 2022
18. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that a term sheet was agreed between them on 1-12-2012 and a supplementary agreement was also entered. According to clause 8 of the term sheet between the parties, the respondent has to make all endeavours to get the lease period renewed after expiry of the principal lease agreement. It is further submitted that as per clause 7 of the agreement business conducting conditions are stipulated between the parties. Clause 24 of the business conducting agreement provides that only in case of default of payment of conducting fee by the claimant and that too after giving a written notice business conduct agreement can be terminated only for non-payment of conducting fee. It is submitted that as per clause 10 of the business conducting agreement dated 18-1-2013 the claimant is paying monthly conducting fee and applicable taxes to the respondent. The learned counsel submitted that the TSTDCL did not renew the lease but it called for fresh tenders and that the respondent was the only bidder and that the TSTDCL awarded the deed of licence dated 31-10-2019 to the revision petitioner in respect of the schedule property and it is nothing but renewal of parent lease agreement which also provided for sub leasing.
19. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent contended that the learned commercial court erred in passing the order under challenge without considering the material on record. According to learned counsel, the commercial court grossly erred in directing the claimants to deposit 50% of the amount quantified by the learned Arbitrator. It amounts to modifying PNR,J & NBK,J 11 CRP 2967 OF 2022 the award. According to learned counsel the commercial court ought to have directed to deposit entire amount awarded by the Arbitrator.
20. It is further contended that the court below erred in not permitting the revision petitioner/respondent to withdraw even the 50% of the amount awarded by the learned arbitral tribunal. Learned counsel would contend that Sub-section (3) of Section 36 of the Act mandates that while considering an application for stay filed along with or after filing application under Section 36 of the Act, if stay is to be granted then it shall be subject to such conditions as may be deemed fit. Thus, Sub-section 3 of Section 36 of the Act gives power to the Court to stay any order by imposing conditions as deemed fit. But this was not followed erroneously. It is further contended that the court below failed to apply the principles under Order XLI Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure while entertaining an application under Section 36 of the Act.
21. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent relied upon following decisions:
1. M/s. Sindhu Projects Limited Vs. Singareni Collieries Limited1
2. Pam Developments Private Limited Vs. State of West Bengal2,
3. National Highways Authority of India Vs. M. Hakeem and others3,
4. IOL Limited Vs. State of U.P and Others4, 1 C.R.P.No.7137 of 2018 (High Court of TS) 2 MANU/SC/0905/2019 3 MANU/SC/0461/2021 PNR,J & NBK,J 12 CRP 2967 OF 2022
5. Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau Vs. BhabhlubhaiVirabhai and Co.5,
6. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs. Power Mech Projects Ltd.6
22. According to the learned counsel for the claimant the respondent assured the claimant that the respondent has the right of first refusal for renewal of lease under clause-V of the lease agreement dated 29.05.2004 which allowed the respondent to get a renewal and that the respondent would undertake to make all efforts to get the agreement renewed on the expiry of the parent lease agreement with the TSTDCL for the continuation of the claimants right for operations and that the respondent gave further assurance of providing an absolute and exclusive right to continue for a further period of 15 years and the initial 15 years period. Basing on the promises of the respondent the claimant had invested substantial amounts to set up the bar and restaurant and banquet facility on the schedule property. The respondent sought approval from TSTDCL appointing the claimant as sub-contractor vide letter dated 21.01.2013 which was approved by its letter dated 05.02.2013 and that the claimant and the respondent have entered into a supplementary agreement dated 10.01.2013 in addition to the earlier term sheet.
23. It is further submitted that the claimant and respondent, the parties under the agreement dated 10.01.2013, have entered into a business 4 MANU/UP/0833/1992 5 MANU/SC/0315/2005 6 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1243 PNR,J & NBK,J 13 CRP 2967 OF 2022 conducting agreement dated 18.01.2013. According to this agreement the term of the agreement commenced from 18.01.2013 and it was valid upto March, 2019. As per the agreement dated 18.01.2013 the respondent had handed over the physical vacant possession of the schedule property to the claimant and authorized to renovate, build the property and as agreed by both the parties that the respondent would not interfere, involve and supervise in conducting of operations, business activities and administration as per clause-20-a.
24. It is submitted that the claimant was willing to pay the revised and enhanced conducting fee of Rs.9,35,747/- which was inclusive of 5% escalation towards annual enhancement of conducting fee. It is submitted that the claimant is entitled for the renewal of the business conducting agreement and fixation of revised business conducting fee by virtue of which the claimant gets right to carry on and conduct business in the schedule property and as such restrain the respondent from illegally and forcibly dispossessing the claimant from schedule property. It is further submitted the claimant had already paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards license fee for the period March, 2020 to September, 2020 on behalf of the respondent as directed by this court in W.P.No.19139 of 2020 which is the liability of the respondent which was to be paid by him to TSTDCL and due to the failure of the respondent the claimant had paid the said amount to TSTDCL towards license fee due and to be paid for the period between PNR,J & NBK,J 14 CRP 2967 OF 2022 March, 2020 to September, 2020 and now the claimant seeks refund of the said amount with interest @12%.
25. It is submitted that the claimant is entitled to seek damages as compensation for the violation of the business conducting agreement and causing harassment to the claimant. The learned counsel for claimant submitted that the cause of action for filing claim statement arose on 29.03.2004 and all further events of entering of lease agreement and the term sheet agreement between the parties herein and also supplementary agreement dated 18.01.2013 between the parties and business conducting agreement dated 31.03.2019 and TSTDCL issuing letter to respondent company.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has relied on following decisions:
1. Harpreet Singh Chapra & others Vs. Suneeth Kaur Sahnet & others7
2. Deep Industries Limited Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation8
3. Ecopack India Paper cup Private Limited Vs. Sphere International9
4. Steel Authority of India Vs. Tata Projects Limited10
5. Pam Developments Private Limited Vs. State of West Bengal 11 7 2018 SCC ONLINE 527 8 2020 (15) SCC 706 9 2018 SCC ONLINE BOMBAY 540 10 2021 SCC ONLINE DEL 4170 11 (2019) 8 SCC 112 PNR,J & NBK,J 15 CRP 2967 OF 2022
6. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation12
7. Malwa Strips Limited Vs. Jyothi Limited 13
8. Sihor Nagar Palika Bureav Vs. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai and Company
9. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. South City Projects14
27. Though elaborate submissions are made and several decisions are cited at the bar the short issue for consideration is whether the commercial court erred in restricting the deposit of amount while passing orders in an application challenging the award of arbitrator and failed to permit the petitioner herein from withdrawing the same.
28. Section 36 of the Act reads as under:
"Enforcement -
(1) Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court.
(2) Where an application to set aside the arbitral award has been filed in the Court under section 34, the filing of such an application shall not by itself render that award unenforceable, unless the Court grants an order of stay of the operation of the said arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3), on a separate application made for that purpose.
(3) Upon filing of an application under sub-section (2) for stay of the operation of the arbitral award, the Court may, subject to such conditions as it may 12 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1243 13 (2009) 2 SCC 426 14 2018 SCC ONLINE KOLKATA 5613 PNR,J & NBK,J 16 CRP 2967 OF 2022 deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that the Court shall, while considering the application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, have due regard to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.] [Provided further that where the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out that, -
(a) the arbitration agreement or contract which is the basis of the award; or
(b) the making of the award, was induced or effected by fraud or corruption, it shall stay the award unconditionally pending disposal of the challenge under section 34 to the award.
Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the above proviso shall apply to all court cases arising out of or in relation to arbitral proceedings, irrespective of whether the arbitral or court proceedings were commenced prior to or after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (3 of 2016).]"
29. On a perusal of Section 36 of the Act, it is clear that the court has to see whether petitioner therein made out a case to grant stay and if so whether any conditions to be imposed. If the Court is satisfied of prima facie case, the Court may grant stay after recording reasons in support of the decision and may impose appropriate conditions.
30. In Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that once an application under sub-section (2) of Section 36 is filed for stay of operation of the arbitral award, the Court might subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award for reasons to be recorded in writing.
PNR,J & NBK,J 17 CRP 2967 OF 2022
31. In Pam Developments (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to the case in Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited V Union of India15 wherein the Court considered the phrase "having regard to", has held that the "words having regard to in Sub-section are the legislative instruction for the general guidance of the Government in determining the price of Sugar. They are not strictly mandatory but in essence directory". While explaining the said phrase it said that mere reference to Code of Civil Procedure cannot take away the power conferred in the Act and the provisions of the Arbitration Act are essentially to be first applied. Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that "Arbitration proceedings are essentially alternate dispute redressal system meant for early/quick resolution of disputes and in case a money decree award is passed by the Arbitrator against the Government is allowed to be automatically stayed, the very purpose of quick resolution of dispute through arbitration would be defeated as the decree holder would be fully deprived of the fruits of the award on mere filing of objection under Section 34 of the Act.
32. In Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited Vs. Candor Gurgaon two developers and Projects Private Limited, the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as under:
"There shall be interim stay of the award subject to the petitioners depositing 60% of the amount of the decree, the remaining 40% of the amount shall be secured by way of bank guarantee of the nationalized bank within 8 weeks. The respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount on furnishing appropriate security." 15
(1990) 3 SCC 223 PNR,J & NBK,J 18 CRP 2967 OF 2022
33. A perusal of the order under challenge shows that the lower court considered the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and also the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as referred to above and it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the court below in appreciating the issue. It appears from the record that the petitioner before the court below has submitted certain aspects relating to the disputes and also submitted certain grounds but, that does not support the petitioner therein to contend that the enforcement of the award is to be un-conditional. The decisions cited supra clearly show that in staying of the enforcement of the award passed by the learned arbitrator, the court has to consider imposition of conditions and depositing of the amount. As already stated above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sepco case (supra) and also in Srei Infrastructure's case (supra) clearly observed that stay can be granted against the award by giving reasons in writing and conditions can be imposed. We find no reason to say that there is failure on the part of the court below in passing interlocutory orders.
34. As there are serious disputes in respect of facts, payments of arrears, rents in this case, the Commercial Court after recording the rival contents put forth by the parties granted the conditional stay. However, commercial court erred in not granting relief of withdrawal of money by revision petitioner/respondent ordered to be deposited. Having regard to facts of this case and to balance the equities to both parties, we are inclined to modify the impugned order dated 29.04.2022. We direct the PNR,J & NBK,J 19 CRP 2967 OF 2022 respondent/claimant to deposit 100% of awarded amount by the learned arbitrator, wherein 50% by way of cash deposit and remaining 50% by way of bank guarantee/security in the form of pledging immovable assets equivalent to balance 50% of the amount awarded by the arbitrator within a period of (02) months from the date of this order. On such deposit, we allow the claimant to withdraw 50% of the cash amount deposited by the respondent/claimant without furnishing any security.
35. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
___________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J ___________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date:27.06.2023 Note:
Issue C.C in one week B/o VRKS PNR,J & NBK,J 20 CRP 2967 OF 2022 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2967 OF 2022 Date:27.06.2023 VRKS