M/S. Techtrans Construction ... vs M/S. Technic Construction ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4293 Tel

        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:

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

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.

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

AIR 1961 Bom 292

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

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