M/S. Vaishnovi Versatile ... vs The Andhra Pradesh Tourism ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3500 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                       &
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                    WRIT APPEAL No. 342 of 2021
                      (Taken up through video conferencing)


M/s. Vaishnovi Versatile Ventures Pvt. Ltd.,
H.No.6-3-37/22/2, Flat No.9, 4th floor,
Iswarya Nilayam, Dwarakapuri Colony,
Punjagutta, Hyderabad - 500 082,
Represented by its Managing Director
Sri K.Ajay Kumar and having its office
Presently at Devlok Project Site, Sy.No.604,
Alipiri - S.V.Zoo Park Road, Tirupati.                        .. Appellant

        Versus

The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development
Corporation Limited, having its office
At 55-17-2 to 4, 5th floor, Stalin Corporate,
Industrial Estate, Auto Nagar,
Vijayawada, represented by its
Managing Director and others.                                 .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant                    : Mr. S. Ravi,
                                               Senior Counsel

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3           : Mr. C.Sumon,
                                              Spl.Government Pleader
Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6           : Ms. V.Sujatha
                                              Government Pleader
Counsel for respondent No.7                 : Mr. Venkata Rama Rao Kota

                               ORAL JUDGMENT
                               Dt: 14.09.2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant.

2. Also heard Mr. C.Sumon, learned Special Government Pleader

attached to the office of learned Advocate General, appearing for the

respondent Nos.1 to 3, Ms. V.Sujatha, learned Government Pleader for

Civil Supplies and Forest appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6, and

Mr. Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.7.

3. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 19.03.2021

passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.32308 of 2018. The

learned single Judge observed that the facts of the case required

elaborate enquiry and this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, would not undertake such enquiry.

Accordingly, it was held that the writ petition was misconceived and

devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Having said so, at

paragraph 9, it was observed as follows:

"Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is

left open to the petitioner to approach the civil Court for

redressal of its grievance. In the event of filing any

comprehensive suit before the competent civil Court, the

civil Court shall consider the same on its own merits

without being influenced by any of the observations made

in this order and shall take independent decision based on

the evidence available on record and as per law. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed."

4. Mr. S. Ravi submits that the appellant has no objection for being

relegated to avail appropriate remedies available. However, he contends

that specifying the appellant to approach the civil Court is not

appropriate in as much as there is an arbitration agreement also in

between the parties and, therefore, this Court may indicate that the

appellant may avail such remedies as may be available in law.

5. Mr. C.Sumon submits that the observations of the learned single

Judge will not preclude the appellant to go for arbitration since they

have already invoked arbitration clause.

6. So, the only question that arises for consideration is as to

whether having not entertained a writ petition because it entails an

elaborate enquiry, a specific direction could have been given to

approach the civil Court or whether the parties should have been

relegated to avail such remedy as may be available in law?

7. We are of the considered opinion that in a matter of the present

nature, the parties ought to have been left to avail such remedies as

may be available in law without giving any specific direction as to what

remedies they should avail, more particularly, when there is also an

arbitration clause in an agreement between the parties.

8. Though, as submitted by Mr. C.Sumon, arbitration provision has

been invoked, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, if the order of the learned single Judge as

indicated in paragraph No.9 stands on record, it may cause prejudice to

the appellant and, therefore, we dispose of this appeal by providing that

it is left open to the appellant to seek appropriate remedies for redressal

of its grievance. We also provide that if any such remedy is availed by

the appellant, observations of the learned single Judge will not influence

any such authority in adjudicating the dispute in between the parties.

9. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

GM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT APPEAL No. 342 of 2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 14.09.2021

GM