HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.2 OF 2021
Date: 25.08.2022
Between:
M/s. Techtrans Construction India Private Limited,
A company registered under Companies Act, 2013,
having its Office at 1-103, Divya Shakti Complex,
7-1-58, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, being represented
by its Chairman Mr. U.Ramesh.
..... Appellant/respondent
and M/s. Technic Construction Company, A Company Regd. Under the Laws of Iran having its Office at 864, 33rd Street, Kordestan Building, Tehran 14388, Iran, having its place of business in India, by name, M/s.Technic Company Limited, 407, B-Block, Amsri Residency, Shyam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, being rep.by its Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Mahankali Surya Narayana Murthy, s/o. Mahankali Jagannadha Murthy, Aged about 65 years, r/o. Khammam.
.....Respondent /claimant The Court made the following:
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.2 OF 2021 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao) There are serious disputes between the appellant and the respondent. The disputes are referred to the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of retired Judge of this Court and two retired Judicial Officers in the rank of District Judge. In Arbitration Case No.1 of 2021, appellant herein filed petition under Order VI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to reject the affidavits and claim statement filed on behalf of the respondent-company.
2. The reason assigned for such prayer is that Sri M.S.N.Murthy deposed to the affidavit as well as the claim statement on behalf of the respondent-company. According to appellant, he joined in the respondent-company only in the year 2018, whereas he has narrated the events that took place much earlier, almost commencing from 2007. Since he only entered into the respondent-company in the year 2018, he cannot claim to have personal knowledge of the events that took place prior to 3 his joining. Therefore, such averments could not have been taken on record. He being not competent to depose to the affidavits and to file claim statement, the same ought to have been rejected on this ground. It is further contended that prior to 2018, Sri M.S.N.Murthy was working with the appellant since the year 2007 and he was well acquainted with the issue concerning the subject matter of the arbitration. Having worked with the appellant and having full knowledge of the facts leading to the dispute, he could not have deposed on behalf of the respondent-company.
3. On due consideration of the respective submissions, the Arbitral Tribunal rejected the application. The Arbitral Tribunal also observed that the appellant has not raised any objection before the Commercial Court about the competence of Sri M.S.N.Murthy to represent the respondent-company. He has got authority by virtue of Power of Attorney executed by the respondent-company. Therefore, it is not open for the appellant to request the Tribunal to reject the affidavits and claim statement signed by Sri M.S.N.Murthy. It was also observed that no prejudice was shown by his depositions and filing of claim statement. Petitioner therein placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in All India Reporter Ltd. Vs. 4 Ramchandra Dhondo Datar1. It was held that the said decision is not applicable to the cases arising under Order VI Rule 14 of CPC.
4. We have heard learned senior counsel Sri V.Hari Haran appearing for Sri A.Narasimha Rao for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. During the course of hearing, it is fairly submitted by the learned senior counsel that M.S.N.Murthy was subjected to extensive cross-examination and during cross-examination all the relevant aspects were put to him and his deposition was recorded. Therefore, it is clear that M.S.N.Murthy was subjected to cross-examination to elicit the information from him to support the plea of the appellant before the Arbitrators. As rightly pointed out by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, no prejudice was caused merely because the deponent earlier worked with the appellant and now working with the respondent. What is deposed by the deponent, on behalf of the respondent, is based on the evidence on record and information furnished to him and what is asserted by him is binding on the respondent. Even the respondent has full confidence in him to 1 AIR 1961 Bom 292 5 depose and therefore authorized him to depose on its behalf and also to file claim statement. The appellant being third party so far as the relationship between the respondent and its employee, it cannot raise an objection on competence of Sri M.S.N.Murthy to depose and to sign pleadings/claim statement. We see no error in the decision arrived at by the Arbitral Tribunal warranting our interference in the appeal.
6. This Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.
______________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J ______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO,J Date: 25.08.2022 Kkm 6 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.2 OF 2021 Date: 22.08.2022 kkm