Telangana High Court
Rupireddy Eshwar Reddy vs The Arbitrator / Assistant ... on 28 September, 2021
Bench: P Naveen Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
********
WRIT PETITION NO.22306 OF 2020
Between:
Rupireddy Eshwar Reddy, s/o. Manohar Reddy,
Aged about 25 years, occu: Business,
r/o.2-7-143, Excise Colony, Warangal,
Warangal Urban District.
.....Petitioner
and
The Arbitrator/Assistant Registrar, Field,
O/o the District cooperative Officer,
Warangal Urban District, Telangana
and others.
.....Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 28.09.2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : No
may be allowed to see the Judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
2
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.22306 of 2020
%28.09.2021
# Rupireddy Eshwar Reddy, s/o. Manohar Reddy,
Aged about 25 years, occu: Business,
r/o.2-7-143, Excise Colony, Warangal,
Warangal Urban District.
...Petitioner
Vs.
$ The Arbitrator/Assistant Registrar, Field,
O/o the District cooperative Officer,
Warangal Urban District, Telangana
and others.
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. S.Lakshmikanth
Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for
Cooperation for respondents
1 & 2,
Mr. D.Goverdhana Chary,
counsel for 3rd respondent
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2010 (4) ALD 500 (DB)
(1998(1) M.P.L.J. 578
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
3
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.22306 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:
" ..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more
particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling records
pertaining to I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.R.No.1 of 2020 on the file of
Respondent No.1 and to quash the impugned order dated
21.11.2020 passed by the Respondent No.1 in I.A.No.1 of 2020
in A.R.No.1 of 2020 which is without jurisdiction and contrary to
the provisions of Telangana Cooperative Societies Act 1964, and
Telangana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 and pass such
other order or orders in the interest of the justice."
2. The Ekasila Co-operative Housing Society Limited (Society) is
registered under Telangana Co-operative Societies Act 1964. This
Society was formed with the avowed objective to buy, sell, hire, let,
develop the land and to give loans to the members for construction
of new dwelling houses in accordance with the Cooperative
principles. The functioning of the Society is governed by the Bye-
laws formulated by the Society. Bye-law No.5 deals with
membership eligibility; Bye-law No.6 deals with the application for
membership; Bye-law No.8 deals with disqualification for
membership; and Bye-law No.42 deals with the procedure
governing allotment of house plots to the members. For the
purpose of this case, sub-clauses 101, 112 and 123 of clause 42 are
Clause-42: Procedure governing allotment of plots to members:
Sub-clause (10): Every member to whom a plot has been allotted shall construct a residential
house in accordance with the plans and designs approved by the society and the Town Planning
Departments or such other competent authority within a period of one year from the date of
allotment of the plot. If he requires any loan from the society under Low Income Group Housing
Scheme he may however construct the house after the loan is sanctioned, but the application for
loan shall be made within a period of six months from the date of conveyance of the site. In
deserving case where the committee is satisfied, extention of time not exceeding six months may be
granted, when site allottee proposes to construct his house with his own funds. If a member fails to
construct the house within the period stipulated, the society, may with the permission of the
Registrar resume the site and allot it to another member. The amount of the plot paid by the
member, from whom the site has been resumed shall be paid back to him on its allotment to other
member.
Sub-clause (11): Every member shall pay the cost of the plot allotted to him within a period of 90
days from the date of allotment and betterment levy as charged by the society shall also be paid by
the member within the time prescribed by the society.
Sub-clause (12): The society shall execute the sale deed for the plot allotted to a member on
payment of all costs and fees in full. Such costs shall include the cost of the land, legal fee,
registration charge, betterment charges etc. Before the society executes the sale deed, the member
shall also execute an agreement undertaking to pay to the society any additional levy that may be
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
relevant. Sub-clause 10 requires member, to whom a plot was
allotted to construct a residential house within one year from the
date of allotment of the plot. If a member fails to construct a house
within the period stipulated, the Society is entitled to resume the
site and allot it to another member. According to sub-clause 11,
member is required to pay the costs of the plot allotted to him
within 90 days from the date of allotment. It also requires
payment of betterment levy within the time prescribed by the
Society. According to sub-clause 12, on payment of all costs and
fees in full, the Society should execute the sale deed. Bye-law
No.43 deals with construction of houses.
3. Petitioner and 3rd respondent claimed to be the members of
the Society. As can be noticed from the averments in the
Arbitration Reference No.1 of 2020, according to 3rd respondent,
Society acquired Acs.10.35 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.1001/1 and
1015 of Hanamkonda village. Layout of house plots was formed
and 3rd respondent was allotted plot no.76 of an extent of 424.16
square yards coming within the Sy.No.1015 and the Certificate to
that extent was issued. Possession was granted to the 3rd
respondent and he continues to be in possession. According to 3rd
respondent, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA)
approved the layout vide D.P.No.4/99. In the approved layout, plot
allotted to the 3rd respondent was renumbered as plot No.37.
According to the 3rd respondent, person by name Mr.
P.Ramachandra Reddy, who was the father-in-law of the 3rd
respondent and the member of the Society, was allotted plot No.75.
made by the society to meet any such further charges as it may have to incur in connection with the
plot allotted to the member.
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
After the HUDA approval, this was renumbered as plot No.38.
These two plots are adjacent and constitute a single block. On the
request of the other plot owners, by spending huge money, these
two plots were cleared of all bushes and kept clean.
4. According to third respondent, P.Ramachandra Reddy
executed the will on 22.04.2005 on the said plot in favour of Ingala
Anvita Desai, i.e., younger daughter of the 3rd respondent and
P.Ramachandra Reddy died on 09.11.2007. By virtue of will
executed by Ramachandra Reddy, Ingala Anvita Desai became the
absolute owner of the plot.
5. While so, third respondent claims that, 5th respondent
representing the Society executed deed of conveyance in favour of
petitioner on 17.07.2020. The conveyance deed shows plot
number as 57 Part as per D.P.No.4/99 with an extent of 157.50
square yards, showing the date of allotment of plot as 26.07.2016.
Third respondent claims that though it is shown as plot no.57
Part, it is nothing but carving out plot no.37 of the 3rd respondent,
as plot no.37 part.
6. He filed Arbitration Reference no.1/2020 before the Deputy
Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 12.11.2020 praying to declare
that 3rd respondent is holding possession of land in plot no.37 of
D.P.No.4/99 as full and absolute owner of the land while
cancelling the deed of conveyance dated 17.07.2020; pass orders
directing the 4th respondent Society to comply with the obligation
of the Society to convey a proper sale deed in favour of 3rd
respondent the whole of the plot allotted to him. The 3rd
respondent also filed I.A., in the said Arbitration Reference
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
no.1/2020 praying to suspend the operation of the sale deed dated
17.07.2020. The Deputy Registrar vide his proceedings
R.C.No.799/2000-B, dated 19.11.2020 appointed Mr. A.Jagan
Mohan Rao, Assistant Registrar/Field - Hanamkonda Circle, Office
of the District Cooperative Officer, Warangal Urban as Arbitrator.
7. The Arbitrator passed interlocutory order on 21.11.2020 in
I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.R.No.1 of 2020 staying the operation of sale
deed dated 17.07.2020. Challenging the competency of the
Arbitrator in considering the dispute and passing interlocutory
order, this Writ Petition is filed.
8. This Court, by order dated 10.12.2020, granted interim
suspension. Praying to vacate the order of said interim suspension,
I.A.No.1 of 2021 is filed.
9. Heard Mr. S.Lakshmikanth learned counsel for petitioner,
the Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondents
1 and 2 and Mr. D.Goverdhana Chary, learned counsel for 3rd
respondent and with their consent, writ petition is taken up for
final disposal.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for
3rd respondent made elaborate submissions on various aspects
regarding membership of the society, allotment of plots, alleged
illegalities in registration of plot in favour of the petitioner, scope of
competence of the Deputy Registrar to appoint Arbitrator,
jurisdiction of Arbitrator and his competence to pass interlocutory
orders.
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
11. The dispute is between two members and a member and the
society. A member is contending that by illegally carving out the
plot allotted to him the Society sold his plot to another member.
12. The prayer sought before the Arbitrator reads as under:
IX. It is therefore prayed that the authority may be
pleased to--
a) Declare that the plaintiff holding possession of the
land in plot No.37 of D.P.No.4/99 is the full and
absolute owner of the land in the said plot in its
entirety while cancelling the deed of conveyance of sale
dt.17.7.2020 registered in favour of the defendant no.3
as document no.15314/2020;
b) Also pass an order directing the defendant no.1 to
comply with the obligation of the society to convey by a
proper sale deed in favour of the plaintiff the whole of
the plot of land as referred to above;
c) Pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit
and proper; and
d) Award costs of this arbitration reference to the
plaintiff.
13. From the above extracted prayer, it is seen that in paragraph
(a) the third respondent herein prayed, (1) to declare him as
holding possession of the land in Plot No. 37; and (2) to cancel the
sale deed. Having regard to prayer sought, two aspects require
consideration. Firstly, whether this dispute is touching upon the
business of the society; and secondly, even if the first aspect is in
the affirmative, whether the Arbitrator can go into the validity of a
sale deed and nullify the same. Before going into these aspects, it
is appropriate to note the view taken by the Division Bench of this
Court in M.Venkataramana Vs. A.P. Co-operative Tribunal,
Hyderabad and others4.
2010 (4) ALD 500 (DB)
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
14. In M.Venkataramana (supra), in the dispute raised under
Section 61, the complainants questioned the alienations made by
the Society on parcels of land of the Housing Society, which were
earmarked for common purpose, to non-members and also sought
relief of cancellation of sale deeds. This dispute was referred to an
Arbitrator. The Arbitrator held that he has jurisdiction to decide
the dispute and declared the sale as null and void. The appeals
preferred by the alienees were dismissed. The Division Bench
extensively considered the scope of Sections 61, 62 and 121 of the
Act. The Division Bench of this Court held that dispute raised
before the Arbitrator cannot be termed as one touching the
business of the Society.
14.1. Dealing with the scope of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and
barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the Division Bench held:
"35. Though Section 121 of the Act bars the action before the
civil Court, the same is confined only to such orders, refusals,
decisions or awards passed or directions issued or actions taken
in accordance with the Act or Rules made thereunder in respect
of which penalty is attached. When once it is shown that the
action taken by the society, which is subject-matter of the
dispute raised before the Registrar is one not in
accordance with the provisions of the Act or Rules and in
respect of which, no adequate or effective remedy is
provided for resolving such a dispute within the framework
of the Act, the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court does not
come into operation. The Act, admittedly, does not provide for
any machinery for determining the rights and liabilities arising
out of a transaction like the present one, whereunder, the
vacant extents belonging to the society and earmarked for a
common purpose, are said to have been illegally alienated in
favour of the petitioners, who are strangers. The Act does not
contemplate grant of relief of the nature prayed for by the
respondents 3 to 7 pertaining to the alleged illegal
alienation by the society in favour of the petitioners, like
cancellation of the sale deeds, a relief which, the civil Court
is certainly empowered to grant."
14.2. On whether the transaction in issue forms part of the
business of the Society, the Division Bench held:
"29. It can be seen from the above provision that among other
things, actions taken in accordance with the Act or Rules made
thereunder shall be final subject to the provisions of the appeal,
revision and review and no such action taken shall be liable to
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
be called in question in any Court or forum. In order to attract
immunity from being questioned in a civil Court, action taken
must be one, which is in accordance with the Act or Rules made
thereunder. Before a dispute can be referred to Arbitration
under Section 61(1), it must be shown that the said dispute is
one touching the constitution, management or business of the
society. Admittedly, the present dispute regarding the alienation
of an extent of 3.2 cents in favour of M. Venkatramana and 3
cents in favour of RCS Raju, are not disputes touching the
constitution or management of the society. According to the
respondents 3 to 7, the dispute is one touching the business of
the society, which proposition is vehemently opposed by the
petitioner. It is, therefore, to be considered whether the dispute,
which arose due to the alienation of the above extents by the 8th
respondent-society in favour of the petitioners, is a dispute
touching the 'business' of the society?
44. In the present case, the complaint is of course against
the society itself with regard to the alienation of the sites
in favour of the petitioners. However, such alienation
which, even according to the respondents 3 to 7, being
illegal and beyond the authority of the society and in
violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules, the same
cannot be construed as a dispute touching the business of
the society. By granting relief of setting aside the
alienations and cancelling the sale deeds in respect of a
dispute, which is not one touching the business of the
society, the Arbitrator-2nd respondent certainly exceeded
the jurisdiction and acted beyond the scope of his
authority. In order to attract the section, it is sufficient, if there
is a dispute touching the business of the society. It is not
necessary that the dispute should arise directly, out of the
business of the society. It would be touching of the business of
the society if the dispute has any relevancy or is in any way
connected with the business of the society.
46. In the present case, alienation of the vacant site that too
earmarked for common purpose in favour of strangers or doing
any real estate business with the land acquired for the avowed
objective of providing dwelling houses to the members of the
society cannot be considered to be an act arising directly out of
'the business of the society' or even 'touching the business of the
society'. As such the alleged unauthorized and illegal alienation
of the vacant sites in favour of strangers has no relation to nor is
in any way connected with the business of the society, namely,
providing dwelling houses to the members of the society or any
ancillary activity relatable to the conduct of the said business of
the society. As observed by this Court in Hyderabad Sheet Metal
and Allied, Industry's case (supra), the finding that the
alienations made by the society in favour of the petitioners do
not give raise to a dispute touching the business of the society,
does not amount to approval of the impugned action of the
society inducting third parties in possession of the vacant sites
earmarked for common purpose as alleged and it is certainly
open to the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide
the dispute, if raised before the civil Court, independently on its
own merits.
47. The word 'business' cannot be construed so as to
include any illegal transaction of the society or its
members purporting to act as members of the society
violating any statutory provisions and entering into a
transaction, when such transaction cannot be treated as
part of business of the society.
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
51. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners that the genuineness or otherwise of the sale
deeds, the identity and nature of the land in dispute,
whether the alienations are liable to be set aside and the
sale deeds are liable for cancellation, and whether the
constructions made by the petitioners on the disputed land
are liable to be demolished or not, are all matters, which
are outside the scope of Section 61 of the Act, as they do
not relate to 'business of the society', which can be referred
to and adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator. When once, the
sale deeds are executed and registered, title in the
property covered by the sale deeds gets legally transferred
in favour of the vendees and even the vendor cannot
unilaterally cancel the same. In case the transaction is
found to be illegal and beyond the authority of the society,
necessary recourse has to be taken to the provisions of the
Specific Relief Act, which provides for cancellation of
documents and decrees." (emphasis supplied)
15. This very issue was also considered by the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Kusum S. Verma and another vs. Pritam Singh
Gulati and another5, the Housing Society sold plot to plaintiff.
Alleging that the Society was contemplating to cancel the sale
deed he filed suit in a civil Court praying to grant decree to declare
that he was owner-in-possession, that defendants had no right to
cancel or challenge the right, title and interest accrued to the
petitioner and also sought for permanent injunction. During the
pendency of the suit plot was sold to another person by the
Society. This was also assailed. On a preliminary issue of
jurisdiction, the civil Court held that suit is maintainable.
Aggrieved thereby, Civil Revision was preferred in the High Court.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held,
"22. However, taking into consideration the pleadings of the
parties and the nature of the claim as set forth in the plaint, in
the present case, it is obvious that the dispute raised by the
plaintiff cannot by any stretch of imagination be taken to be a
dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the
society. The society, ex facie had parted with its interest in
the plot in dispute with the execution of the sale deed dated
19th June, 1981. The transaction of sale of the plot stood
completed with the registration of the sale-deed. In case, this
sale-deed was voidable; its effect could only be taken away by
avoiding the same and getting it cancelled through a civil Court of
(1998(1) M.P.L.J. 578
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
competent jurisdiction. So long as a voidable sale-deed is not
cancelled, it continues to remain valid and effective.
23. The business of the Society as has already been noticed
hereinabove was to acquire the land and after carving out the
plots; sell them to its members for raising residential houses.
24. I am of the considered opinion that the dispute in regard
to the invalidity of a particular sale deed and its
cancellation on the ground that it was voidable could only
be determined and adjudicated upon by a civil Court of
competent jurisdiction.
25. I am further of the considered opinion that in such matters, a
dispute, if any; relating to the transaction regarding a sale could
be referred to the Registrar only upto the stage anterior to the
passing of the title and not thereafter. A void sale deed which has
to be treated as non est is however liable to be ignored at any
stage.
26. In a case where the transaction of sale is claimed by the
society to be voidable and further in all such cases where
the relief claimed by the plaintiff is such which cannot be
granted by the Registrar or in any forum contemplated
under the Act, even in those cases the bar of section 84 of
the Act cannot be said to have been attracted. A decree of
permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration as sought
for by the plaintiff could not have been granted in any
forum provided under the Act. In this view of the matter
also, the Civil Court could not be taken to have been ousted
of its jurisdiction with which it stood vested under the
provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to deal with the
suit filed by the plaintiff." (emphasis supplied)
16. As per Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Court is
vested jurisdiction to adjudicate all suits of civil nature. Exclusion
of jurisdiction of Civil Court to adjudicate suit of civil nature is an
exception which can be carved out by a statute. Such exclusion
has to be clear and specific. It cannot be inferred.
17. Section 616 of the Act, requires referring a dispute, broadly
touching upon the constitution, management or the business of a
S. 61. (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or
the business of a society, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid
employee of the society, arises-
(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or
(b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the
society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society; or
(c) between the society or its committee, and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past
agent or past employee or the nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the
society; or
(d) between the society and any other society.
Such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision: Provided that the such dispute has already been referred to
the subcommittee of the society constituted for the purpose and could not be resolved by such subcommittee amicably, it shall be
referred to the Registrar for decision.]
(2) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the
constitution, management or the business of a society, such question shall be decided by the Registrar.
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
society to the Registrar. On such reference the Registrar may
himself decide the dispute or entrust to any other authorised
officer or refer to an Arbitrator (Section 627). These two sections
provide mechanism to redress a dispute/grievance on aspects
provided therein.
18. Further, on a careful reading of Section 1218 of the Act,
1964, it is seen that the exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court is
against orders, refusals, decisions or awards passed or directions
issued or actions taken in accordance with the Act or the Rules.
This provision does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to
decide a dispute if that dispute is civil in nature. Further,
orders/refusals/decisions/awards/directions/actions have to be in
accord with the Act/the Rules.
19. Issues of possession, including extent of possession, illegality
of a deed of conveyance affecting claim of a person on a parcel of
land and to enforce specific performance of an agreement/
understanding/assurance are disputes of civil in nature. On a
(3) Every dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election to a committee of a society shall be referred for decision to
the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated, whose decision thereon shall be final.
(4) Every dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election shall be referred under sub-section (3) only after the date
of declaration of the result of such election.
.
S 62. (1) The Registrar may, on receipt of the reference of a dispute under section 61-
(a) elect to decide the dispute himself; or
(b) transfer it for disposal to any person who has been invested by the Government with powers in that behalf; or
(c) refer it for disposal to an arbitrator.
(2) Where the reference relates to any dispute involving immovable property, the Registrar or such person or arbitrator, may order
that any person be joined as a party who has acquired any interest in such property subsequent to the acquisition of interest therein
by a party to the reference and any decision that may be passed on the reference by the Registrar, or the person or the arbitrator
aforesaid, shall be binding on the party so joined as if he were an original party to the reference.
(3) The Registrar may, by order for reasons to be recorded therein, withdraw any reference transferred under clause (b) of sub-
section (1) or referred under clause (c) of that sub-section and may elect to decide the dispute himself or transfer it to any other person
under clause (b) of subsection (1) or refer it to any other arbitrator under clause (c) of that sub-section.
(4) The Registrar, such person or arbitrator shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the
rules and bye-laws and such decision shall, subject to the provisions of section 76, be final. Pending final decision on the dispute, the
Registrar, such person or arbitrator, as the case may be may make such interlocutory orders as he may deem necessary in the
interest of justice.
S.121. (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, all orders, refusals, decisions or awards passed or
directions issued or actions taken in accordance with this Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be final subject
to the provisions for appeal, revision and review and no such order, refusal, decision, award, direction or action
taken shall be liable to be called in question in any Court or Forum.
(2) While a society is being wound up, no suit or other legal proceeding relating to the business of such society
shall be proceeded with, or instituted against, the liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof
on any matter touching the affairs of the society except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms and
conditions as he may impose:
Provided that where the order of winding up is cancelled, the provisions of this sub-section shall cease to apply
in relation to the society and any member thereof, but shall continue to apply to the person who acted as
liquidator.
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
conjoint reading of Sections 61, 62 and 121 of the Act, 1964, it is
beyond pale of doubt that jurisdiction of civil Court is not ousted
on the issues raised by the 3rd respondent and on the contrary, on
the prayers sought by the third respondent before the Arbitrator,
the Arbitral proceedings are not maintainable.
20. On this aspect, I am guided by the decision of the Division
Bench in M.Venkataramana (supra). The Division Bench held
that once a sale deed is executed and registered by the society on a
parcel of land/house plot, the title gets transferred to the vendee
and the society is no more concerned with said property. It is no
more the business of the society. Apart from the fact that after
sale deed was executed title of the property vested in the petitioner
and the Society cannot unilaterally cancel the sale deed, the issue
of possession, extent of possession claimed by the 3rd respondent
and legality and validity of a sale deed executed by the Society in
favour of the petitioner require adducing evidence, consideration of
evidence brought on record and decision thereon after considering
the rival submissions to the dispute. Further, the plot claimed by
the 3rd respondent was not registered in his name by the Society.
Thus, both the reliefs sought by the 3rd respondent cannot be
granted by the Arbitrator and these aspects are disputes of civil in
nature require adjudication by a civil Court and the Arbitrator has
no competence to deal with such aspects.
21. Thus, the Registrar erred in entertaining the dispute raised
by the 3rd respondent and referring the dispute to the Arbitrator.
Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. However, liberty is granted to
3rd respondent to work out his remedies as available in law. It is
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
also made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits
and it is open to parties to raise all pleas available to them in
appropriate proceedings. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any
shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
Date: 28.09.2021
KKM/tvk
PNR,J
W.P.No.22306 of 2020
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.22306 OF 2020
Date: 28.09.2021
Kkm
