B. V. Narayana Reddy vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3525 Tel

                  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                                     AND
                HON'BLE SMT DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI


             CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.155 of 2022
                              Date:07.07.2022

Between:

B.V.Narayana Reddy S/o.Venka Reddy,
Aged 49 yrs, R/o.D.No.23-27/33/2,
Haripuram, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District,

                                                .....Petitioner

     And

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
Having its Regd. Office at 123,
Anagappanaikan Street, Chennai,
Having its Admn Office at 3-6-478, 4th floor,
Anand Estates, Liberty road,
Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad
Having its Branch Office at Rajahmundry,
Rep., by its GPA Sri K.V.Ramana & others.
                                                .....Respondents

The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SMT DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.155 of 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Arbitrator, the appellant herein

along with others preferred Arb.O.P.No.51 of 2014 under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') in the Court of

XIV Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C), City Civil Court at Hyderabad. In

support of their plea of invalidity of the Award, several contentions were

urged. The civil Court without going into those contentions, summarily

rejected the arbitration O.P.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.Srikanth Goud,

learned counsel for the respondents.

3. We have gone through the grounds urged by the appellant herein in

Section 34 application. From paragraph No.6 of the application filed under

Section 34, it is noticed that the appellant contended that there was no prior

notice in writing about appointment of arbitrator or commencement of

arbitral proceedings. In paragraph No.7 it was contended that sole

arbitrator unfairly decided the matter illegally beyond the scope of

submission to the arbitration and Award was passed in conflict with public

policy of India and there was fraud and collusion in obtaining ex parte

Award resulting in great prejudice to the rights and interests of the

petitioners therein and in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. In paragraph No.12 of the order under appeal, the civil Court only

refers to marking of documents Exs.A.1 to A.12 and then records its

conclusion by saying that "it is crystal clear from the docket proceedings

and from the record and the testimony of Pw.1 and the award passed by the

sole arbitrator disclose that notices were served on the petitioners, but they

did not appear before the arbitrator either personally or by engaging an

advocate". Then the civil Court holds that there was no irregularity of

procedure adopted by the arbitrator.

5. As noticed above, not serving notices and not affording opportunity

was one of the contentions raised. In addition, other contentions are also

raised, but none of those contentions were considered by the civil Court

before rejecting the petition and the same would amount to non-application

of mind. Therefore, we are constrained to set aside the order passed by the

XIV Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C), City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

6. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. The matter is

remanded to the Court below for fresh consideration. Having regard to the

fact that the O.P., is of the year 2014, we request the Court below to

expedite the hearing and complete the proceedings, as early as possible,

preferably within a period of four months. Pending miscellaneous petitions,

if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

_________________________ DR. G.RADHA RANI, J 7th July, 2022 Rds