Madras High Court
Cybercity Builders & Developers ... vs M.V.Salai Abaranam on 21 August, 2023
C.R.P.(PD)2401 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.2401 of 2019
and CMP.No.15890 of 2019
Cybercity Builders & Developers Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director Venu Vinod.
Cyber City, Green Hills Road,
Near Hi-Tech City, MMTS, IDL Road, KPHB,
Hyderabad-500 072. .. Petitioner
vs
1.M.V.Salai Abaranam
2.B.Anubhama
3.S.Bhaskaran
R.Kalanjiam (died)
4.K.Venkatraman
5.Vistra ITCL (India) Limited
Karamuttu Centre, 3rd Floor, South Wing,
Anna Salai, Chennai-600 035. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 11.08.2018 passed in
I.A.No.130/2017 in Arbitration O.P.No.58/2015 on the file of the District
Judge-II at Kanchipuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P.(PD)2401 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar
For Respondents : Mr.N.Devaraj (for R1)
Ms.Balambigai (for R2)
for Mr.S.Namasivayam
Mr.S.Rajkumar (for R3)
Ms.N.Dhanalakshmi (for R4)
Mr.P.Madhivanan (for R5)
ORDER
This revision arises against an order passed by the learned
Principal District Judge-II, Kanchipuram in I.A.No.130 of 2017 in
Arbitration O.P.No.58 of 2015. Arbitration O.P.No.58 of 2015 is a post
award Arbitration initiated by the respondents. They were successful and
obtained a decree in O.P.No.82 of 2008 before the Arbitrator on
07.07.2014.
2.The parties to the arbitration are the petitioner and the
respondents in Arbitration O.P.No.58 of 2015. Pending proceedings, an
application was taken out in I.A.No.130 of 2017 to implead the civil
revision petitioner and his mortgagee, the fifth respondent. The fifth
respondent has not filed any revision before this Court.
3.The claim of the Civil Revision Petitioner is that he is a rank
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)2401 of 2019
outsider and un-connected with the transactions between the
petitioner/decree holder i.e., M.V.Salai Abaranam and B.Anubhama and
S.Bhaskaran. He would claim independent title over the property stating
that the property originally belonged to Mr.Manali Parthasarathy
Mudaliar. The legal representative of the said Manali Parthasarathy
Mudaliar had alienated the property in favour of one Anugraha Real
Value Services (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., who in turn alienated the property in
favour of the civil revision petitioner on 03.10.2016. Subsequent to the
purchase, they had mortgaged the property in favour of Vistra ITCL
(India) Ltd. on 01.06.2017.
4.It is the categoric case of the civil revision petitioner that they
are no way connected to the transaction between M.V.Salai Abaranam
and B.Anubhama and S.Bhaskaran.
5.Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Ms.Balambigai, learned counsel for Mr.S.Namasivayam,
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Mr.Rajkumar, learned counsel
for the 3rd respondent, Ms.N.Dhanalakshmi, learned counsel for the 4th
respondent and Mr.P.Madhivanam, learned counsel for the 5th
respondent.
6.A perusal of the order passed by this Court in O.P.Nos.18 and 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)2401 of 2019
of 2015 dated 09.11.2017 fortifies the submission made by Mr.Rajasekar.
The petitioner Cybercity Builders and Developers Private Limited are not
parties to any of the proceedings. The sale deed also shows that the
predecessor in title was one Mr.Manali Parthasarathy Mudaliar and he is
no way connected to the judgment debtors Bhaskaran and Anubhyama.
7.When the matter came up last week, I requested Mr.Rajkumar to
state as to on what grounds his client had moved an application to
implead a third party to the Arbitration O.P. filed under Section 9.
8.Mr.Rajkumar would very fairly state today that the implead
application was filed under the impression that Anubhama was a Director
in Anugraha Real Value Services (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. the vendor of the
civil revision petition. On verification, he states that it is not the
situation.
9.While the Court has the power to implead a person, who is a
third party to the Arbitration proceedings, there must be some subsisting
interest or a transfer of interest from the judgment debtor in favour of the
proposed parties. That situation has not arisen in the present case. The
presence of the Civil Revision Petitioner and the fifth respondent is
neither necessary nor proper for the adjudication of Arbitration
O.P.No.58 of 2015 or E.P.No.85 of 2018 filed pursuant to the Arbitration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)2401 of 2019
award before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu.
10.Since the petitioner and the fifth respondent are no way
connected to the transaction between the decree holder and the judgment
debtor and since the judgment debtor have no interest either in the
Vendor company or in the purchaser/civil revision petitioner/5th
respondent, I am constrained to interfere with the order of the learned
trial Judge allowing the application. The Civil Revision Petition is
allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.130 of 2017 dated 11.08.2018 is
set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
21.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
rjr/vs
To
The District Judge-II,
Kanchipuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)2401 of 2019
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
rjr/vs
C.R.P.(PD)No.2401 of 2019
and CMP.No.15890 of 2019
21.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
