Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Dr. Raghavarao Polavarapu vs Dr. Jitendra Prasad Katneni on 15 November, 2022

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
                                 AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

                 C.R.P.Nos.983 and 1078 of 2022
                    W.A.No.513 of 2022 and
                     W.P.No.15612 of 2022

 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)


       The genesis of all the above matters owes to order dated

 21.12.2021 in W.P.No.13192/2021 passed by learned single Judge.

 2.    The brief factual matrix of the case is thus:

       (a) The petitioners in W.P.No.13192/2021 are claiming to be

 the President, Vice-President and Treasurer of NRI Academy of

 Sciences (for short 'NRIAS') registered under the A.P. Societies

 Registration Act, 2001.      The petitioners prayed for writ of

 mandamus declaring the action of the District Registrar,

 Vijayawada/2nd respondent in approving the amendment of the list

of office bearers of NRIAS society vide proceedings dated

26.06.2021 submitted by unofficial respondents 4 to 10 and at the

same time not considering the amendment petition filed by the

petitioners on 24.06.2021 and rejecting the same as illegal and

beyond his jurisdiction as per the provisions of A.P. Societies

Registration Act, 2001. Obviously there were rival claims among

the petitioners and unofficial respondents to have control over the

management of NRIAS which runs 1000 bedded hospital and

medical and nursing colleges. Respondents opposed the writ

petition. Learned single Judge held that the 2nd respondent/District

Registrar erred in giving endorsement accepting the document filed

by the unofficial respondents and rejecting the document filed by

the petitioners since both actions are wrong. Ultimately, learned

Judge partly allowed the writ petition and set aside the

endorsement given by the Registrar. Learned Judge left the parties

to choose their own options and to pursue their legal remedies

before a competent Court or arbitrator as the case may be with an

observation that the list filed by the both parties shall be kept in the

record of the 2nd respondent and they shall be subject to the final

decision of a competent Court or arbitrator as the case may be.

(b) Aggrieved by the above judgment, unofficial

respondents 4 and 7 filed writ appeal Nos.204/2022 and 234/2022

respectively. The State also filed writ appeal No.253/2022. One Dr.

Savitri Devi Bikkina also filed writ appeal No.149/2022 whereas

the 1st petitioner filed writ appeal No.142/2022. All the aforesaid

appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 22.02.2022

by the division bench of this court as follows:

"7. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, Sri Justice Devinder Gupta (Retired Chief Justice) is appointed as sole Arbitrator to decide all existing disputes between the parties referable to Section 23 of the Act, 2001. It will remain open for both the parties to agitate all legal and factual aspects of the disputes before the Arbitrator. Learned Senior Counsel would agree that all pending litigations in relation to the subject dispute before any other legal forums/courts shall be withdrawn by the respective parties. Needless to say, depending upon the need and urgency, both parties would be at liberty to approach the Arbitrator for any interim order. We make it clear that the question of law pertaining to interpretation of Section 9 of the Act, 2001 is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.

8. In view of appointment of Arbitrator with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we set-aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and dispose of all the writ appeals as well as the writ petition in the above stated terms."

sole arbitrator. The arbitrator sent notices to the concerned parties

and scheduled the sitting of arbitral tribunal on 01.04.2022 at

Neethi Bagh Club, New Delhi. Learned arbitrator fixed the date

08.04.2022 for filing the claim statement; the date 29.04.2022 for

filing defence and counter claim and the date 30.05.2022 for

further proceedings. While so, the claimants therein filed

application under Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 seeking interim relief. The order passed by the learned

arbitrator is the cause for filing the present matters under

consideration now.

(d) It appears the claimants therein sought for urgent orders

in the interim petition while the respondents opposed and requested

to hear the matter as scheduled on 30.05.2022. Learned arbitrator

considered it necessary to issue some interim measures to protect

the affairs of the society, inasmuch as, there were serious

allegations that the affairs of the society were not being run

properly by the respondents who were in control of the affairs of

the society. Ultimately, learned arbitrator appointed Sri Mandava

Vishnuvardhana Rao, IPS (Retd) as Administrator of NRIAS with

immediate effect to look after and manage all the affairs including

the financial matters until further orders. He restrained the

respondents from meddling with the affairs of the society including

its management or operating the bank accounts of the society and

directed that they will be managed, looked after and operated by

the administrator.

(e) Aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2022 appointing

Administrator, Dr. Narsaraju Mantena and others filed arbitration

appeal Nos.24/2022 and 25/2022 under Section 37 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the High Court of Delhi

on 17.05.2022. Learned single Judge passed status-quo order

dated 19.05.2022 and posted the matters to 25.05.2022. On

25.05.2022, inter alia it was brought to the notice of the High

Court of Delhi that some more respondents have to be impleaded.

Hence the Court directed that all the persons who were parties

before the learned arbitrator be impleaded as parties by filing an

amended memo in which case notice shall be issued to all of them.

The Court directed to list the matter on 27.05.2022.

(f) It should be further noted that, in the meanwhile,

aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2022 appointing the

administrator by the arbitrator, Dr. Jitendra Prasad Katneni filed

two arbitration appeals i.e., AOP No.2/2022 and 3/2022 in the

court of Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and in

view of ongoing summer vacation, presented the appeals before

learned vacation Judge, Krishna District. In IA No.110/2022 in

AOP No.2/2022 and in IA No.108/2022 in AOP No.3/2022,

learned vacation Judge while ordering notice to the respondents

granted interim stay of operation of the order dated 14.05.2022

passed by the learned arbitrator until further orders.

(g) Aggrieved by the above interim stay orders, Dr. Raghava

Rao Polavarapu who is one of the respondents in the above

appeals, filed CRP Nos.983/2022 and 1078/2022. In IA No.1/2022

in CRP No.983/2022 a division bench of this Court granted interim

suspension of the order dated 23.05.2022 in IA No.108/2022 in

AOP No.3/2022.

(h) It should be noted that the revision petitioner Raghava

Rao Polavarapu filed Special Leave to appeal (C) No.13362/2022

before Hon'ble Apex Court against the docket order dated

14.07.2022 in CRP No.1078/2022 on the ground that no interim

orders were granted by this Court in the said CRP while hearing

the main CRP Nos.983/2022 and 1078/2022. While listing the

matter after six weeks, Hon'ble Apex Court passed the following

order:

"In the meantime, operation of the order dated 23rd May, 2022 passed by the Vacation Civil Judge-cum-XX A.D.J., VJA, Camp at Nuzvid in IA No.110/2022 in AOP No.2/2022 shall remain stayed. It is made clear that pendency of these petitions before this Court would not come in the way of the High Court disposing of the Revision Petitions which are being heard by it. (emphasis supplied)

We are sure that the Administrator will run the College/Hospital smoothly."

(i) While so, Dr. Narsaraju Mantena who filed arbitration

appeal Nos.24/2022 and 25/2022 before the High Court of Delhi,

withdrew those two appeals and accordingly the High Court of

Delhi passed orders dated 12.07.2022 to the effect that in view of

submission of the respondents conceding to the jurisdiction of

Andhra Pradesh Courts, liberty was granted to the petitioners to

withdraw their petitions with a liberty to file afresh before the

jurisdictional Courts in Andhra Pradesh.

(j) That is how the way was paved for hearing CRP

Nos.983/2022 and 1078/2022.

(k) So far as W.P.No.15612/2022 is concerned, it is filed by

the administrator appointed by the learned arbitrator. His case is

that he took charge on 16.05.2022 and intimated to all concerned

and sent letters to the banks where the NRIAS is having accounts

and informed that he will be the authorized signatory for all the

financial transactions of NRIAS. His grievance is that

respondent/ICICI bank which operates from the campus of NRI

Hospital has 9 accounts of NRIAS and through those accounts,

salaries and other payments were being paid on behalf of NRIAS.

The administrator issued three cheques but the respondent bank has

not cleared them on the instructions of one C.T. Chowdary one of

the disputed members of the NRIAS. The writ petitioner prayed

that writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondent to

honour the cheques issued by him and also the cheques to be issued

in future for carrying out the administration of NRIAS.

(l) Writ appeal No.513 is concerned, it was filed by the

Secretary of NRIAS aggrieved by the orders dated 25.05.2022 in

IA No.1/2022 in WP No.15337/2022. It should be noted that the

administrator filed W.P No.15337/2022 seeking writ of mandamus

declaring the action of the 2nd respondent/SHO, Mangalgiri Rural

PS in refusing to receive the complaint and in refusing to grant

police protection to him to carry out the administration of the

NRIAS as illegal and to direct the respondents to provide necessary

protection to ensure smooth functioning of the petitioner. In IA

No.1/2022 a learned single Judge of this Court passed order giving

liberty to the petitioner to submit complaint before the 2nd

respondent, whereupon, the 2nd respondent was directed to consider

the same and give interim protection to the 2nd petitioner from

individuals obstructing the 2nd petitioner from discharging his

functions so as to ensure smooth administration of the NRIAS

society. Learned single Judge further observed that it is open to the

2nd petitioner to submit his complaint to the higher authority of the

3rd respondent i.e., the Director General of Police, CISF, Ministry

of Home Affairs whereupon the said authority is directed to give

protection in accordance with law. The said order is challenged in

W.A.No.513/2022.

(m) The above is the matrix of the case relating to the

above four cases.

3. Running the risk of pleonasm, we re-produce the relevant

portion of the order dated 03.08.2022 of Hon'ble Apex Court

below in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13362/2022

to remind all concerned that there is no obstacle for hearing the

revision petitions and other allied matters:

"In the meantime, operation of the order dated 23rd May, 2022 passed by the Vacation Civil Judge-cum-XX A.D.J., VJA, Camp at Nuzvid in IA No.110/2022 in AOP No.2/2022 shall remain stayed. It is made clear that pendency of these petitions before this Court would not come in the way of the High Court disposing of the Revision Petitions which are being heard by it."

4. In that view, we have heard arguments in CRP Nos.983/2022

& 1078/2022, W.P.No.15612/2022 and W.A.No.513/2022.

Elaborative arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for

both parties. So far as the two revision petitions are concerned,

learned counsel for revision petitioners vehemently argued that the

learned vacation Judge ought not to have interfered with the order

dated 14.05.2022 passed by the learned arbitrator in appointing

administrator, inasmuch as, in the said order learned arbitrator

pellucidly stated that it was necessary to issue some interim

measures to protect the affairs of the society in view of the serious

allegations that the affairs of the society were not being run

properly by the respondents who were in control of the affairs of

the society and with that avowed purpose, the administrator was

appointed. Further, long before arbitration appeals were filed

before the vacation Court, the administrator has taken charge of the

affairs of NRIAS for the smooth administration of the affairs of

1000 bedded hospital, medical college, nursing college and vast

and sprawling campus containing medical and administrative

departments. In that view, staying operation of order dated

14.05.2022 of the arbitrator would create chaotic situation and

paralyze the medical administration of the NRIAS. It is also

argued that if respondents were aggrieved, they could have agitated

before the arbitrator for cancellation or modification of interim

order. Hence appeals before District Court are not maintainable. It

is thus prayed to allow the two CRPs and set aside the impugned

orders.

5. Per contra, learned Counsels for respondents while

supporting the impugned orders would submit that the order

appointing administrator was infested with illegality and non-

observation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the said

order was hurriedly passed on 14.05.2022 when in the main

arbitration proceedings some of the respondents were not even

served and served respondents were concerned, time was granted

till 24.05.2022 to file counters and the main matter was fixed for

hearing on 30.05.2022. They vehemently argued that there was no

requirement, much less pressing requirement to appoint the

administrator as some of the respondents before the arbitrator were

smoothly running the administration of NRIAS. Going by the

unproved allegations of the petitioners therein, administrator was

appointed without giving time to the respondents to file their

counters and oppose the interim petition. It is further argued that

aggrieved by the said illegal order, respondents filed two

arbitration appeals AOP No.2/2022 and 3/2022 before the vacation

Judge, Krishna District and learned vacation Judge having

observed that without following the principle of audi alteram partem,

learned arbitrator passed the interim order, stayed the order dated

14.05.2022 which is perfectly valid in the eye of law. It is further

argued that the said order being only an ex-parte ad-interim order,

the present petitioners in two CRPs and others can as well appear

before the District Court and file their counters and seek for

cancellation of the said order. It is argued that since there was no

jurisdictional error in the order impugned and they are only ad-

interim orders, CRPs are not maintainable. They prayed to dismiss

the CRPs.

6. So far as W.P.No.15612/2022 is concerned, Sri Y.V. Ravi

Prasad, learned Senior Counsel argued that since the appointment

of administrator is under challenge before the vacation Court, the

said petition filed by the administrator seeking direction to the

respondent bank may be dismissed. So far as W.A.No.513/2022 is

concerned, he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order in

I.A.No.1 of 2022 for the same reason that appeals are pending

before the District Court, Krishna. On the other hand, on behalf of

administrator, it is prayed to allow the W.P.No.15612/2022 and

dismiss the writ appeal No.513/2022. Both parties cited decisions

to buttress their contentions.

7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the

above matters to allow?

8. POINT: We gave our anxious consideration to the above

respective arguments. We have narrated the vicissitudes of the

history of the matters to project two main aspects - firstly, the

parties to the arbitration proceedings and other persons who claim

to have some interest therein, though at the inception chose

different fora, however, ultimately submitted to the jurisdiction of

the Courts in Andhra Pradesh as observed by the Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi and secondly, in none of the proceedings pending

before us, the appointment of administrator is directly under

challenge. Therefore, in our considered view we cannot decide the

validity of the appointment of the administrator as per order dated

14.05.2022 of the arbitrator. That aspect is directly under

challenge before the District Court, Krishna District. What is

impugned in the revision petitions is the ex-parte ad interim order

passed by the learned vacation Judge. Admittedly the main appeals

are pending before the District Court, Krishna District. Therefore,

the respondents in those appeals can approach the District Court

and file counters and get ready in the main matters in view of the

urgency involved. In our view, an early decision in AOP Nos.2

and 3 of 2022 pending before the District Court will solve the issue

with regard to validity of the appointment of the administrator.

Hence in the interest of justice we propose to direct the parties to

approach District Court, Krishna District where the aforesaid

matters are pending with a direction to the said Court to dispose of

two appeals within a time frame. Till those matters are disposed of

by the District Court, since the administration of NRIAS shall not

be hampered, we find it apposite that the administrator appointed

by the arbitrator shall administer the affairs of the NRIAS subject

to the outcome of the aforesaid two matters. It is at this stage

germane to note that Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated

03.08.2022 while staying operation of the interim order passed by

the vacation civil Judge in I.A.No.110/2022 in AOP No.2/2022

observed "we are sure that the administrator will run the

college/hospital smoothly." So also a division bench of this Court

vide order dated 26.05.2022 in CRP No.983/2022 suspended the

interim order in IA No.108/2022 in AOP No.3/2022 passed by the

vacation Judge. Therefore, the interim orders passed by the

vacation Judge are stayed in the above two proceedings, meaning

thereby, the appointment of administrator is in vogue. For this

reason also it is apposite to allow him to administer NRIAS till

disposal of AOP Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 by the District Court,

Krishna wherein his appointment is directly under challenge. We

also deem it appropriate that the administrator shall be impleaded

as a respondent in the aforesaid both AOPs. Hence we direct the

District Court, Krishna District to suo motu implead the

administrator as a party respondent in both the AOPs and afford

him an opportunity to file counter and hear him along with the

other parties.

9. W.P.No. 15612/2022 is concerned, the same can be allowed

partly by directing the respondent / ICICI Bank to honour the

cheques issued by the 2nd petitioner/Administrator subject to the

result of AOPs before the District Court, Krishna. It is made clear

that during the pendency of those two matters, administrator can

file petitions and seek for suitable orders from the District Court

concerning to the administration of NRIAS.

10. Writ Appeal No.513/2022 is concerned, the same is filed

against the interim orders in IA No.1/2022 in W.P.No.15337/2022

wherein learned single Judge gave liberty to the administrator to

approach the respondents 2 and 3 therein and give complaint

whereupon the respondents 2 and 3 shall consider the same and

give interim protection to him. Since we permitted the

administrator to run the administration of NRIAS till disposal of

the AOP Nos.2 and 3, such interim protection in our considered

view, is essential. Therefore, there is no requirement to interfere

with the interim order passed by learned single Judge. The writ

appeal thus can be dismissed. However we expect that learned

single Judge will dispose of the main writ petition subject to

outcome of the AOPs.

11. Accordingly,

i. CRP Nos.983/2022 and 1078/2022 are allowed and

the interim order dated 23.05.2022 in IA No.110/2022

in AOP No.2/2022 and in IA No.108/2022 in AOP

No.3/2022 are set aside with a direction to the District

Court, Krishna where the matters are pending to suo

motu implead the administrator as a party respondent

and afford an opportunity to the respondents to file

counter and after hearing both parties pass an

appropriate order and dispose of the appeals in

accordance with law within eight (8) weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the parties

are directed to cooperate with the District Court,

Krishna in this regard. Till disposal of two AOPs, the

administrator shall administer the affairs of NRIAS

and if necessary file petitions and seek suitable orders

from the District Court, Krishna in the matters relating

to the administration of NRIAS. The District Court

shall pass orders on such applications on merits after

affording an opportunity to hear all concerned.

ii. W.P.No.15612/2022 is partly allowed and

respondent/ICICI Bank is directed to honour the

cheques issued by the 2nd petitioner/administrator

subject to the result of the AOPs before the District

Court, Krishna.

iii. W.A.No.513/2022 is dismissed with an observation

that learned single Judge will dispose of the main W.P

No.15337/2022 subject to the outcome of the AOPs.

No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

_____________________________ G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

15 .11.2022 krk

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

C.R.P.Nos.983 and 1078 of 2022 and W.A.No.513 of 2022 and W.P.No.15612 of 2022

15th November, 2022 krk HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

C.R.P.Nos.983 and 1078 of 2022 W.A.No.513 of 2022 and W.P.No.15612 of 2022

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)

The genesis of all the above matters owes to order dated

21.12.2021 in W.P.No.13192/2021 passed by learned single Judge.

2. The brief factual matrix of the case is thus:

(a) The petitioners in W.P.No.13192/2021 are claiming to be

the President, Vice-President and Treasurer of NRI Academy of

Sciences (for short 'NRIAS') registered under the A.P. Societies

Registration Act, 2001. The petitioners prayed for writ of

mandamus declaring the action of the District Registrar,

Vijayawada/2nd respondent in approving the amendment of the list