Telangana High Court
M/S. Maytas Properties Ltd., vs A.P. State Consumer Disputes ... on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili, Pulla Karthik
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
WP.Nos.18276, 27689, 18154, 22670, 28098, 28142, 28161, 28090,
27614, 27685, 18277, 33886, 28335, 18177 of 2010,
5061, 5062, 5063, 5065, 5066, 5070, 5072, 5073, 5074 of 2011,
28311 of 2010, 5142 of 2011, 5190 of 2011,
28137 of 2010, 17068 of 2010 and 538 of 2011
BETWEEN
# HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Ltd, (Portfolio Manager) Having its,,
regd Office at 314, D.NO Road, Fort,Mumbai and having one of its Places,
of business at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
Smt.Mani Rao, W/o. Sr. G.Satyanarayana & others
% 29-04-2011
..................Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the Respondents:
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?Cases referred:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
WP.Nos.18276, 27689, 18154, 22670, 28098, 28142, 28161, 28090,
27614, 27685, 18277, 33886, 28335, 18177 of 2010,
5061, 5062, 5063, 5065, 5066, 5070, 5072, 5073, 5074 of 2011,
28311 of 2010, 5142 of 2011, 5190 of 2011,
28137 of 2010, 17068 of 2010 and 538 of 2011
WRIT PETITION NO: 18276 of 2010
Between:
1) HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Ltd, (Portfolio Manager) Having its,,
regd Office at 314, D.NO Road, Fort,Mumbai and having one of its Places,
of business at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
1) Smt.Mani Rao, W/o. Sr. G.Satyanarayana
Flat NO 104, "The Grand Milieu" Apartments, Navodaya Colony, Road NO 14,
Banjara Hills,Hyderabad
2) Smt Curie Rao, W/o.Dr.S.Vijaya Kumar,
D.No. 8-1-68/1,, Gokulam-Rahulam, Peda Waltair, Doctors Colony,
Visakhapatnam-530017
3) The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd,
a Banking Company with the meaning of the Companies Act having its
Reg Office at 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Road,, Fort,Mumbai-400001,
4) The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd,
a Banking Company with the meaning of the Companies act
having one of its,, Brach Office at Visakhapatnam,
5) Sri.Ashok Domemeti, .
Personnel Relationship Manager, HSBC Bank, Visakhapatnam Branch,
HSBC Bank, And of Flat NO 104, Satya Sai Residency,
Old CBI Office Road,Visakhapatnam-530017.
6) Smt.K.Uma Devi, W/o. Sri K.V.Ravi
Branch Vice President,HSBC Bank,, Visakhapatnam Branch, Uplands, of
D.No 49-53-7/14, Balayya Sastry Layout,
4th Town Police Station Back Side Visakhapatnam-530016.
7) The A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad
Rep by the Registrar.
(RR 3, 4, 5 & 6 are not necessary parties to this WP)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue a writ of
Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, call for the records and quash the impugned
order dt 02nd June, 2010,in C.C.I.A NO 190 of 2010 in C.C NO 76 of 2009 on the file of the
State commission, consumer Redressal Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad and consequently
dismiss the Complaint as framed and filed for want of territorial Jurisdiction and refer the
disputes for arbitration
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. P.RAJENDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri K.V.Siva Prasad
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 7 : None Appeared
WRIT PETITION NO: 27689 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr.M.Teja Pratap Raju S/o. Mr.M.Hari Prasad Raju, O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A,
III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500016, A.P. ..
2 Mr.M.Teja Pratap Raju, S/o.M.Hari Prasad Raju,
Hyderabad - 500016, A.P. ..
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1) A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
represented by its President, Hyderabad.
2) Mr.Ch.Venu Madhava Rao, S/o.Mr.Narsing Rao
R/o. Flat No. S-1, Akhila Arcade, Plot No.6, Womens Co-operative Society,
Road No.2, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 045.
3) Mrs. Ch.V.R. Rajani, W/o.Ch.Venu Madhava Rao
R/o. Flat No.S-1, Akhila Arcade, Plot No.6, Womens Co-operative Society,
Road No.2, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 045.
4) M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
5) M/s. Himagiri Bio-Tech (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
6) M/s. Sindhu Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
7) M/s. Goman Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
8) M/s. Himagiri Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
9) M/s. Konar Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
10) M/s. Medravidi Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
11) M/s. Yamuna Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
12) M/s. Wardha Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
13) M/s. Vindhya Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
14) M/s. Vamsadhara Agro (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
15) M/s. Uttarashada Agro (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016.,
16) Mr.D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju
Flat No.102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjaya Nest,, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda,
Hyderabad-45.,
17) M/s. State Bank of India, represented by its, Branch Manager,
Post Box No.2, T-44, Robert Lines, Secunderabad.
*(Respondent Nos. 4 to 16 are not necessary parties, to this Writ Petition)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue appropriate
writ, order or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records of
the 1st respondent in C.C.I.A.No.1910/2010 in C.C.No.19/2010 dated 11.10.2010 on the file
of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad and quash the
same as being unlawful and in excess of jurisdiction and for being in violation with the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation ACt, 1996 apart from being illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 4 to 17 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 18154 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, Rep. by its Authorised Singatory,
M. Teja Pratap Raju, S/o. M.Hari Prasad Raju, O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad
2 Mr. M. Teja Pratap Raju, S/o M. Hari Prasad Raju,
Hyderabad ..
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1) A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Rep. by its President, Hyderabad
2) Bharti Khurana, D/o Mr. Ramesh Chandra Khurana Pond Ave, Brokline
MA-02445, USA
3) Asha Khurana Wo Ramesh Chandra Khurana, R/o. 103, New Swastik Apartments,
Sector-9, Rohini rep. by the GPA Holder Mr. Sandeep Khurana S/o Ramesh Chandra
Khurana, R/o 501, Block -2B, SMR Vinay Acropolis White Fields, Opp. Jayaberi Silicon
Valley, Kondapur, Hyd. Appointed Vide GPA dt. 6-6-2008 & 28-6-2008.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue a writ order
or direction one more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the 1st respondent in dismissing the petitioners application in C.C.I.A. No. 1215/2010 in
C.C.No. 13/2010 filed under Sec .8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 vide order dt.
28-6-2010 as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same and
direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute in C.C.No. 13/2010 on the file of the 1st
Respondent Commission to the Sole Arbitrator.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents : None Appeared
WRIT PETITION NO: 22670 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised, Signatory Mr.M. Teja Pratap Raju
S/o M. Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016, A.P.,
2 Mr.M. Teja Pratap Raju S/o M. Hari Prasad Raju, .,
O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016, A.P.,
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rep. by its President,
Hyderabad
2 Mr.Chandrasekhara Rao Somaraju,, S/o.Gopala Rao Somaraju,
B-406,Amsri Residency,7-1-38, DK Road,, Ameerpet,Hyderabad-500016,
3 Madhurima Somaraju,, W/o.Mr.Chandrasekhara Rao Somaraju,
B-406,Amsri Residency,7-1-38, DK Road,Ameerpet,, Hyderabad-500016,
4 M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P ) Ltd, Hyderabad
5 M/s. Himagiri Bio-tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
6 M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
7 M/s. Goman Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
8 M/s. Himagiri Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
9 M/s.Swarnagiri Green Fields Pvt Ltd,, Hyderabad
10 M/s.Konar Green Land Pvt Ltd,, Hyderabad
11 M/s. Medravati Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
12 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
13 M/s. Wardha Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
14 M/s.Vindhya Green Lands Pvt Ltd,, Hyderabad
15 M/s. Vamsadhara Agro P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
16 M/s. Uttarashad Bio-Tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad,R-4 to R-16,are having their registered
Offices, at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor, Amogh, Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016,
Rep.by their Authorized Signatory,D.V Subba Raju ..
17 M/s.State Bank of India, Rep.by its Assistant General Manager
Racpc, Zonal Office,Patny Centre,, Secunderabad,
18 Branch Manager, M/s. Sate Bank Of India,
SLP,P.B.B.Branch,Jubilee Hills,, Plot No.1272 Road No.63,
Hyderabad
(Respondent Nos.4to 18 are not necessary parties to this WP).
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue appropriate
writ, order or direction one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the
orders of the 1st respondent in C.C.I.A No.1495/2010 in C.C No.11/2010 dated 13-08-2010
on the file of A.P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad and
quash the same as being unlawful and in excess of jurisdiction and for being in violation with
the provisions of the Arbitration and conciliation act 1996 part from being illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional
Counsel for the Petitioners :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 4 & 18 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 28098 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., Rep.by its Authorised Singatory,
Mr. M.Teja Pratap Raju, S/oMr. H.Hari Prasad Raju, O/o 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh
Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad-500016, AP. ..
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 AP. STate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rep by its President
Hyderabad.
2 Mr.Pitta Satya Sai Kumar, S/o Mr. Bangari Naidu
R/o Flat No.F-D, Jains Akanksha,, 1-114-1/3, Opp: SatyamComputers,,
Kothguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084 ..
3 M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P) Ltd, Hyderabad.
4 M/s. Himagiri Bio-Tech P.Ltd., Hyderabad.
5 M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad.
6 M/s. Goman Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad.
7 M/s. Himagiri Green Fields Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad.
8 M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields P. LTd, Hyderabad.
9 M/s. Konar Green Lands Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad.
10 M/s. Medravati Agro Farms P. Ltd, Hyderabad.
11 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P.Ltd, Hyderabad.
12 M/s. Wardha Green Fields P.Ltd, Hyderabad.
13 M/s. Vindhya Green Lands P.Ltd, Hyderabad.
14 M/s. Vamsadhara Agro P.Ltd, Hyderabad.
15 M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech P.Ltd, Hyderabad.
Regd.Office at: 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor
Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016 ..
16 Mr. D.V.S.Subba Raju, S/o Mr. D. Krishna Raju
Flat No.102, Plot No.97. Dhanujaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda,Hyderabad-500045,
17 The Branch Manager, M/s. BHW Home Finance Ltd.
3rd Floor, Saeed Plaza, 6-17-73, Besides, Central Court Hotel, Lakadikapool,
Hyderabad-50004.
(Respondent Nos.3 to 16 are not necessary parties to this WP)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent in dismissing the petitioners' application in
C.C.I.A.No.1718/2010 in C.C.No.43/2010 dt. 30-9-2010 filed under sec.8 of the Arbitration
and conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the
1st respondent to refer the dispute to the sole Arbitrator by rejecting the complaint in
CC.NO.43/2010 on the file of the 1st respondent commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 16 :None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 :SRI. VENKATESWARLU POSANI
Counsel for the Respondent No.17 :Sri D.Rajasekhar
WRIT PETITION NO: 28142 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., rep.by its Authorised Singnatory,
O/o 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,, Hyderabad-500016 AP.,,
2 Mr. M.Teja Pratap Raju, S/o Mr. M.Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,, Hyderabad-500016 AP.,,
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 AP. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisison, Rep.by its President,
Hyderabad.
2 Mr. Godavarthi Naveen Kumar,, S/o. Mr. C. Nambermallu,
R/o. 3400, Richmond CA, 984806, USA, Rep. by his GPA, Mr. G. Nambermallu,
S/o. Mr Subba Rao, R/o. Santosh,
Deluxe Apartment, Santosh Nagar Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad 500 084..
3 Deutsche Post Bank Home Finance Ltd., (Formely BHW Home Finance Limited
Phase-III, New Delhi 110020., .,
4 The Branch Manager,, Deutsche Post Bank Home Finance Ltd.
having branch office at 3rd,, floor, 6-1-73, Saeed Plaza Lakdi-ka-pul,,
Beside Central Court Hotel,hyderabad. ..
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue appropriate
writ, order or direction one more in the nature of " writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of
the 1st respondent in dismissing the petitioner's application in C.C.I.A.No. 1747/2010 in
C.C.No. 45/2010 dated 30.09.2010 filed under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act,
1996 as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent to refer
the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting the complaint in C.C.No. 45/2010 on the file of
the 1st respondent commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 4 :None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 :SRI. VENKATESWARLU POSANI
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 :SRI. D.RAJASEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 28161 of 2010
Between:
1) M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., Rep.by its Authorised Singatory,
Mr. M.Teja Pratap Raju, S/oMr. H.Hari Prasad Raju, O/o 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016, AP. ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
1) The A P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Rep by its President Hyderabad.
2) D.Venkateswar Reddy, S/o.Mr.Srinivas Reddy
R/o.317,Hemingaly,L.N.Roselellga,USA,
rep.by his attorney Mr.Srinivas Reddy,S/o.Mr.Pulla Reddy,
r/.o.Plot No.38,Sri Balaji swarnapuri colony,Moti Nagar Hyderabad-500018.
3) M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P) Ltd, Hyderabad.
4) M/s. Himagiri Bio-Tech P.Ltd., Hyderabad.
5) M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad.
6 M/s. Goman Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad.
7 M/s. Himagiri Green Fields Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad.
8 M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields P. LTd, Hyderabad.
9 M/s. Konar Green Lands Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad.
10 M/s. Medravati Agro Farms P. Ltd, Hyderabad.
11 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P.Ltd, Hyderabad.
12 M/s. Wardha Green Fields P.Ltd, Hyderabad.
13 M/s. Vindhya Green Lands P.Ltd, Hyderabad.
14 M/s. Vamsadhara Agro P.Ltd, Hyderabad.
15 M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech P.Ltd, Hyderabad.
Regd.Office at: 6-3-1186/5/5A,
III Floor Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016 ..
16 Mr. D.V.S.Subba Raju, S/o Mr. D. Krishna Raju
Flat No.102, Plot No.97. Dhanujaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda,
Hyderabad-500045,
17 The Branch Manager,, M/s. BHW Home Finance Ltd.
3rd Floor, Saeed Plaza, 6-17-73, Besides, Central Court Hotel, Lakadikapool,
Hyderabad-50004 ..
(RR 3 to 16 are not necessary Parties to this WP)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent in dismissing the petitioners' application in
C.C.I.A.No.1761/2010 in C.C.No.49/2010 dt. 30-9-2010 filed under sec.8 of the Arbitration
and conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the
1st respondent to refer the dispute to the sole Arbitratory by rejecting the complaint in
CC.No.46/2010 on the file of the 1st respondent commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 :SRI. VENKATESWARLU POSANI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 16 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.17 : SRI. D.RAJASEKHARnar
WRIT PETITION NO: 28090 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised, Signatory,
Mr.M. Teja Pratap Raju, S/o Mr.M.Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad -500 016, A.P
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Reptd. by its President,
Hyderabad., .,
2 Mr. Srinivas Gunti, S/o. Mr. Gunti Chandra Mouli
R/o. H.No. 5-4-399/3, Road No. 8, Kamala Nagar, Vanasthali-, puram,Hyd.-500 070,
Reptd.by his GPA Holder, Mr. Chituprolu,
Prakash,S/o.Mr.Chituprolu Rangaiah,Age:54 years,Occ:Service,
R/o.H.No.5-6-141/1, Bottuguda,NatrajTalkiesRoad,Nalgonda-01..
3 M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
4 M/s. Himagiri Bio-Tech (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
5 M/s. Sindhu Greenlands (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
6 M/s. Goman Agro Farms (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
7 M/s. Himagiri Green Fields (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
8 M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
9 M/s. Konar Green Lands (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
10 M/s. Medravati Agro Farms (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
11 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
12 M/s. Wardha Green Fields (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
13 M/s. Vindhya Green Lands (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
14 M/s. Vamsadhara Agro (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
15 M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech (P) Ltd., .
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad - 500 016. .. 1
6 Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju
Flat No. 102, Plot No. 97, Dhanunjaya Nest,, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda,,
Hyderabad - 500 045.
17 The Branch Manager, M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. Begumpet, Road No. 1,, II Floor, East Wing,
ICICI Towers, Hyderabad - 500 016..
(RespondentNos.3to16 are not necessary parties to this W.P.).
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent in dismissing the petitioners' application in C.C.I.A. No.
1748/2010 in C.C.No. 46/2010 dt. 30-9-2010 filed under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st
Respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting the complaint in C.C. No.
46 /2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent Commission.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 17 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 27614 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr.M.Teja Pratap Raju S/o. Mr.M.Hari Prasad Raju, O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,, Hyderabad - 500016, A.P. ..
2 Mr.M.Teja Pratap Raju, S/o.M.Hari Prasad Raju,
Hyderabad - 500016, A.P. ..
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,,
represented by its President, Hyderabad.
2 Mr.K.Vivekananda Rao, S/o.Sobanachalam
R/o.1044, LIGH, KPHB Colony,, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72.,
3 K.Prashanth, S/o.K.Vivekananda Rao
POP Displays, Yonkers, USA, rep. by his GPA, K.Vivekananda Rao
S/o. Mr.Sobanachalam,,
R/o.1044, LIGH, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72. ..
4 M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
5 M/s. Himagiri Bio-Tech (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
6 M/s. Sindhu Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
7 M/s. Goman Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
8 M/s. Himagiri Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
9 M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
10 M/s. Konar Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
11 M/s. Medravidi Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
12 M/s. Yamuna Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
13 M/s. Wardha Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
14 M/s. Vindhya Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
15 M/s. Vamsadhara Agro (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
16 M/s. Uttarashada Agro (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Registered Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016,,
represented by their Attorney Mr.D.V.S.Subba Raju S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju..
17 Mr.D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju
Flat No.102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjaya Nest,, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad
(Respondents No. 4 to 17 are proforma parties to this Writ Petition).
18 Branch Manager,, M/s. State Bank of India, PBB Branch, S.P. Road,
Secunderabad., .,
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue appropriate
writ, order or direction one more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the 1st respondent in dismissing the petitioners application in C.C.I.A.No.2211/2010 in
C.C.No.54/2010 dated 7.10.2010 filed under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent to refer
the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting the complaint in C.C.No.54/2010 on the file of
the 1st Respondent Commission.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 4 to 18 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 27685 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised, Signatory,
Mr.M.Teja Pratap Raju, S/o. Mr.M.Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,, Hyderabad - 500 016, A.P.,
2 Mr. M. Teja Pratap Raju, S/o. Mr. M. Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,, Hyderabad - 500 016, A.P.,
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Reptd. by its President, Hyderabad.
2 Mr. Penubolu Venkat Ram Reddy, S/o. Mr. P. Dayakar Reddy
R/o. Plot No. 760,, Road No. 39,,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad..
3 Ms. Chennuru Lakshmi Pallavi, D/o. Mr. C. Gopala Reddy
R/o. Plot No. 760,, Road No. 39,,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad..
4 M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
5 M/s. Himagiri Bio-Tech (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ...
6 M/s. Sindhu Green Lands (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ...
7 M/s. Goman Agro Forms (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
8 M/s. Himagiri Green Fields (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
9 M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
10 M/s. Konar Green Lands (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
11 M/s. Medravidi Agro Forms (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
12 M/s. Yamuna Agro Forms (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
13 M/s. Wardha Green Fields (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ..
14 M/s. Vindhya Green Lands (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ...
15 M/s. Vamsadhara Agro (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ...
16 M/s. Uttarashada Agro (P ) Ltd., Hyderabad,,
Rep. by their Attorney, Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1186/5A, III Floor,
Amogh Plaza,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. ...
17 The Branch Manager, M/s. UTI Bank Ltd. (Presently known as M/s. Axis Bank Ltd.)
Retail Asset Center II Floor,, P M Modi Complex, 5-4-187/6, M.G. Road,,
Karbala Maidan, Secunderabad - 03..
(Respondent Nos.4 to 16 are not necessary parties to this Writ Petition)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent in dismissing the petitioners' application in C.C.I.A. No.
2212/2010 in C.C. No. 55/2010 dated 7-10-2010 filed under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st
Respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting the complaint in C.C. No.
55 / 2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent Commission.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 4 to 17 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 18277 of 2010
Between:
1) The Hongkond and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, A Banking Company
within the meaning of the, Companies Act having its Registered Office at 52/60,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001
2) The Hongkond and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, A Banking Company
within the meaning of the, Companies Act having its Branch Office at Visakhapatnam.
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1) Smt.Mani Rao, Wife of Sr.G.Satyanarayana,
Flat No.104,, "The Grand Milieu", Apartments,,
Navodaya Colony, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034..
2) Smt.Curie Rao,, wife of Dr.S.Vijaya Kumar,
resident of D.No.8-1-68/1, Gokulam Rahulam, Peda, Waltair, Doctors Colony,,
Visakhapatnam 530 017. ..
3) HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Limited.,
(Portfolio Manager) having its Registered Office at
314, D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai and having one of its places of businesses at
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.,
4) Sri Ashok Dommeeti, son of not known
Personal Relationship Manager, HSBC Bank,, Visakhapatnam Branch,
HSBC Bank, and resident of, Flat No.104, Satya Sai Residency,
Old CBI Office Road, Visakhapatnam 530 017..
5) Smt K.Uma Devi,, wife of Sri K.V.Ravi
Branch Vice President, HSBC Bank,, Visakhapatnam Branch, Uplands,
Visakhapatnam, resident of D.No.49-53-7/14, Balayya Sastry Llayout,
4th Town Poice Station back side Visakhapatnam 530 016..
6) The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad.
Rep. By the Registrar.
(Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 are not necessary parties to this writ petition)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of
Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, call for the records and quash the impugned
order dated 2nd June, 2010, in C.C.I.A.No.381 of 2010 in C.C.No.76 of 2009 on file of the
State Commission Consumer Redressal Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad and consequently
dismiss the complaint as framed and filed for want of territorial jurisdiction and refer the
disputes for arbitration.
Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri V.PADMANABHAN & SRI. J.SIVANESAN
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 :SRI. K.V.SIVA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 : None Appeared
WRIT PETITION NO: 33886 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signator, Mr.M. Teja Pratap Raju
S/o
M. Hari Prasad Raju, O/o. Maytas Hill Colony, Bachupally Village,
Nizampet,, Hyderabad-72.,
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rep. by its President,
Hyderabad
2 Sagi Rama Chandra Raju, S/o. Suryanarayana Raju
R/o. 2216, Foot Hill Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84109,,
USA rep. by GPA Holder Savitiri Penmatsa W/o. Subba Raju,
R/o. H.no. LIG-45, Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase I, JNTU Road Kukatpally,
Hyderabad.. 3 D.V.S. Subba RAju (Nominee), S/o.D. Krishnam Raju
Flat No.102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar,, Yousufguda, Hyderabad
4 Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju (Director),, S/o. Satyanarayana Raju
H.No. 17, Tulasi Apartments, Madhura Nagar,S.R.Naagar,, Yousufguda, Hyderabad
5 Byrraju Rama Raju (Director),, S/o. Rama Linga Raju
R/o.Plot No. 1254A, Road No.63, Jubilee Hils,, Hyderabad 500 033,
6 Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director),, S/o. Padam Sain Jain
33, Babar Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi 110 001, .,
7 The Branch Manager,, M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., Begumpet Branch, 2nd Floor, East
Wing, ICICI Towers, Road No.1, Near Old Airport,, Hyderabad 16,
(Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are not necessary parties to this Writ Petition)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ order or direction one more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the
action of the 1st respondent Commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in C.C.I.A.
No. 2588/2010 in C.C.No. 67/2010 by its order dated 16.12.2010, filed under Sec.8 of the
Arbitrartion and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and consequently
direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrary by rejecting the complaint
in C.C.No. 67/2010 on the file of the 1st respondent Commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 7 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 28335 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised, Signatory Mr.M. Teja Pratap Raju
S/o M. Hari Prasad Raju, O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza,
Begumpet, Hyderabad, A.P.,
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rep. by its President,
Hyderabad
2 PVS Kedarnath,, S/o. Mr. PV Ramana Sarma,
USA, Rep. by his GPA Holder, Mr. PV Ramana Sarma,, S/o. Mr. Suryanarayana, R/o.
Plot No. 601, Sri Sai Ram, Prestige Apartments, Siddhardha Nagar (N), Hyderabad
3 M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P ) Ltd, Hyderabad
4 M/s. Himagiri Bio-tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
5 M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
6 M/s. Goman Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
7 M/s. Himagiri Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
8 M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyderabad.
9 M/s. Konar Green Lands P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
10 M/s. Medravati Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
11 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
12 M/s. Wardha Green Fields P.Ltd., Hyderabad
13 M/s. Vindhaya Green lands P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
14 M/s. Vamsadhara Agro. P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
15 Ms/. Uttarashada Bio tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016.,
16 Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju,, S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju,
Flat No. 102, Plot No. 97, Dhanunjaya Nest,, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hdyerabad
17 The Branch Manager,, M/s. State Bank of India NRI Branch,
Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad., .,
(Respondent No.3 to 16 are not necessary parties to this Writ Petition)
.......RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue appropriate
writ order or direction one more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
1st respondent in dismissing the petitioners application in C.C.I.A. No. 2034/2010 in C.C.No.
57/2010 dated 30-9-2010 filed under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as
illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the
dispute to the sole Arbitrator by rejecting the complaint bin C.C.No. 57/2010 on the file of the
1st Respondent Commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 17 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 18177 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, rep. by its Authorised Signatory M. Teja Pratap Raju,
S/o. M. Hari Prasad Raju,, O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,,
Hyderabad-500 016, A.P. ..
2 M. Teja Pratap Raju, S/o. M. Hari Prasad Raju,,
O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,, Hyderabad-500 016, A.P.,
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,, rep. by its President,
Hyderabad.
2 Sandeep Khurana, S/o. Ramesh Chandra Khurana
R/o. 501, Block-2B, SMR Vinay Acropolis white Fields,, Opp. Jayabheri Silicon Valley,
Kondapur, Hyderabad.,
3 Sarika Khurana, W/o.Sandeep Khurana, S/o.Ramesh Chandra Khurana
R/o. 501, Block-2B, SMR Vinay Acropolis white Fields,, Opp. Jayabheri Silicon Valley,
Kondapur, Hyderabad.,
4 Assistant Manager,, M/s. State Bank of India, RACPC, Administrative Wing-I,
3rd floor, Patny Centre, Secunderabad-500 003, .,
5 Deputy General Manager,, M/s. State Bank of India, Operations & Credit, Bank Street,
Koti, Hyderabad., .,
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue a writ
order or direction one more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the
action of the 1st respondent in dismissing the petitioners' application in C.C.I.A.
No.1216/2010 in C.C.No. 14/2010 filed under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996 vide order dated 28.06.2010 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently set
aside the same and direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute in CCNo.14/2010 on the file
of the 1st respondent Commission to the Sole Arbitrator
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5 : Sri M.Narender Reddy
WRIT PETITION NO: 5061 of 2011
Between:
1) M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, M. Teja Pratap Raju,,
S/o. Mr. M. Hari Prasad Raju,, O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Nizampet Road,,
Hyderabad -500 072. ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,, Reptd. by its President,
Hyderabad.
2 Mr. K. Madhu, S/o. Mr. Srinivasulu
R/o. H.No. B1-45, HUDA Colony,, Chanda Nagar,,
Hyderabad - 500 050. ..
3 Mrs. K. Radhika, W/o. Mr. K. Madhu
R/o. H.No. B1-45, HUDA Colony,, Chanda Nagar,,
Hyderabad - 500 050. ..
4 Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County,, Bachupally,,
Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 072. ..
5 Mr. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, S/o. Mr. Satyanarayana Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad -500 072.,
6 Mr. B. Rama Raju, S/o. Mr. Rama Linga Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad -500 072.,
7 Mr. Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director),, S/o. Mr. Padam Sain Jain
33, Babar Road, Bengali Market,, New Delhi -110 001.,
8 The Branch Manager,, M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.
Begumpet Branch, East Wing, ICICI Towers, Road No.1,, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 16.,
9 The General Manager, (Credit), .
Race Course Circle,, Vadodra - 390 007, Gujarat.
(Respondents No. 4 to 7 are proforma parties to this W.P.).
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent Commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in
C.C.I.A. No. 2999/2010 in C.C.No. 81/2010 by its order dated 03-02-2011, filed under Sec. 8
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and
consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting
the Complaint in C.C. No. 81/ 2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent Commission.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 4 to 9 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 5062 of 2011
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Mr. M. Teja PRatap
Raju,
S/o. Mr. M. Hari PRasad Raju, O/o. Maytas Hill Country, Bachupally,,
Nizampet Road, Hyderabad - 500 072 ..
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rep. by its President,
Hyderabad
2 Mr. Naga Vinay Reddy Sathi, S/o. Mr. Sura Reddy
R/o. MIG - B-36, Dr. A.S.Rao Nagar, ECIL, Hyderabad - 62,
Rep. by his GPa, Mr. S.Sura Reddy, S/o. Mr. Venkata Reddy,
R/o. MIG B-36, Dr. A.S.Rao Nagar, ECIL, Hyderabad, Appointed vide GPa, Dt:
22.2.2008
3 Mr. M. Theja Pratap Raju, S/o.M. Hari PRasad Raju
O/o. Maytas hills Country, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hydeabad - 500 072,
4 Mr. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, S/o.Mr. Satyanarayana Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill Country, Bachupally,, Miyapur, Hydeabad - 500 072,
5 Mr. B.Rama Raju, S/o.Mr. Rama Linga Raju
O/o. Maytas Hills Country, Bachupally,, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 072,
6 Mr. Ved Kumar Jain ( Nominee Director ), S/o. mr. Padam Sain Jain
33, Babar Road,, Bengali Market,,
New delhi - 110 001 ..
7 The Branch Manger,, M/s. BHW Home Finance Ltd.,
3rd Floor, Saeed Plaza, 6-1-73,, Beside Central Court Hotel,,
Lakdikapool, Hyderabad - 500 004 ..
8 M/s. BHW Home Finance Ltd.,, 202, II & III Floor, Okhala Industrial Estate,
Phase - III, New Delhi 110 020, ( Respondent No.3 to 6 are progorma,
parties to this writ petition ) ..
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue appropriate
writ, order or direction one more in the nature of " Writ of Mandamus " declaring the action of
the 1st respondent commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in C.C.I.A. No.
3002/2010 in C.C.No. 84/2010 by its order dated 3.2.2011, filed under Sec. 8 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently
direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting the complaint
in C.C.No. 84/2010 on the file of the 1st respondent Commission
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 5063 of 2011
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, rep. by its Authorised Signatory M. Teja Pratap Raju,
S/o. M. Hari Prasad Raju,, O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Nizampet Road,,
Hyderabad 500 072. ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,, rep.by its President,
Hyderabad.
2 Venkatesh Govid Swamy, S/o. Govinda Swamy
R/o. Flat No.202, Second Floor, Royal Keertana Apartments,, H.No. 3-4-450,
Barkatpura,
Hyderabad 500 027,
3 Geetha Macherla, W/o. Venkatesh Govind Swamy
R/o. Flat No.202, Second Floor, Royal Keertana Apartments,, H.No. 3-4-450,
Barkatpura,
Hyderabad 500 027,
4 D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Krishnam Raju (Nominee)
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
5 Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, S/o. Satyanarayana Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
6 B. Rama Raju,, S/o. Rama Linga Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
7 Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director), S/o. Padam Sain Jain
33, Babar Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi 110 001, .,
8 The Branch Manager,, M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., Begumpet Branch,
2nd Floor East Wing, ICICI Towers, Road, No.1, Near Old air port, Hyderabad-16,
9 M/s. IDBI Retail Asset Centre,, Murugesa Naiker Complex,
3rd Floor, 68-Greams Road, Chennai 600 006, .,
10 The General Manager,, M/s. IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Towers, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai 400 005,, (Respondent No.4 to 7 are proforma parties to this writ,
petition) ..
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order or direction one more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the
action of the 1st respondent commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in
CCIA.No.3025/2010 in CC.No.92/2010 by its order dt. 3-2-2011, filed under sec.8 of the
arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently
direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute to the sole arbitrator by rejecting the complaint
in CC.No.92/2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents : None Appeared
WRIT PETITION NO: 5065 of 2011
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, rep. by its Authorised Signatory M. Teja Pratap Raju,
S/o. M. Hari Prasad Raju,, O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Nizampet Road,,
Hyderabad 500 072. ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,, rep.by its President,
Hyderabad.
2 Sowmya Katragadda, D/o. K Satyanarayana
R/o. 1616 Brandon Parkl, Dr Apartments -G Manchester,, MO USA,
Rep by GPA Mr. K Satyanarayana S/o. Mr. Atchaiah,
R/o. Flat No. 301, Gayatrimaheswari Nilayam, Jayabharat Nagar, Nimzampet Road,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500 072.
3 K. Vani, W/o. K. Satyanarayana
R/o. Flat No. 301, Gayatrimaheshwari Nilayam, Jayabharat Nagar, Nizampet Road,,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500 072 ..
4 Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju (Director), S/o. Satyanarayana Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
5 B. Rama Raju, S/o. Rama Linga Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
6 Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director),, S/o. Padam Sain Jain
33, Babar Road, Bengali Market,, New Delhi 110 001,
7 The Branch Manager,, M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., Begumpet Branch,
2nd floor East Wing, ICICI Towers, Road No. 1,, Near old Air port, Hyderabad 16,
8 M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,, Central Ofifce/Registered Office
Land Mark, Race Course Circle, Vadodra 500 016, Gujrat,
(respondents No.3 to 8 are proforma parties to this, writ petition)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent Commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in
C.C.I.A. No. 3023/2010 in C.C.No. 90/2010 by its order dated 03-02-2011, filed under Sec. 8
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and
consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting
the Complaint in C.C. No. 90/ 2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent Commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 5066 of 2011
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, rep. by its Authorised Signatory M. Teja Pratap Raju,
S/o. M. Hari Prasad Raju,, O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Nizampet Road,,
Hyderabad 500 072. ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,, rep.by its President,
Hyderabad.
2 M. Venkata Rama Reddy Sathi, S/o. Sura Reddy
R/o. MIG B-36, Dr. A.S. Rao Nagar, ECIL, Hyderabad-62,,
rep. by his GPA S.Sura Reddy S/o. Venkata Reddy,,
R/o.MIG B-36, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, ECIL, Hyderabad, Appointed vide GPA, Dt.22.2.2008.
3 M. Theja Pratap Raju, S/o. M. Hari Prasasd Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
4 Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, S/o. Satyanarayana Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
5 B. Rama Raju, S/o. Rama Linga Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
6 Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director),, S/o. Padam Sain Jain
33, Babar Road, Bengali Market,, New Delhi 110 001,
7 The Branch Manager,, M/s. BHW Home Finance Ltd., 3rd Floor, Saeed Plaza,
6-1-73, Besides Central Court Hotel, Lakadikapool,, Hyderabad 500 004,
8 M/s. BHW Home Finance Ltd.,, 202, II & III Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase III, New Delhi 110 020, (respondents No.3 to 6 are proforma parties to this,
writ petition) ..
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent Commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in
C.C.I.A. No. 3000/2010 in C.C.No. 82/2010 by its order dated 03-02-2011, filed under Sec. 8
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and
consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting
the Complaint in C.C. No. 82/ 2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent Commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 5070 of 2011
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, Rep.byits Authorised Singatory,
Mr. Teja Pratap Raju, S/o Mr.M.Hari Prasad Raju, O/o Maytas Hill County,
Bachupally,
Nizampet Road, Hyderabad-500072 ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 AP. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rep. by its PResident,
Hyderabad.
2 Sowmya Katragadda,, D/o K.Satyanarayana,
USA, rep.byits GPA Mr. K.Satyanarayana, S/o Mr. Atchaiah, R/o Flat No.301,
Gayatrimaheswari Nilayam, Jayabharat Nagar, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad 500072.
3 Mr.M.Theja Pratap Raju, S/o M.Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o Maytas HillCounty, Bachupally, Miyapur, Hyderabad-500 072,
4 Mr. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju (Director), S/o MR. Satyanarayana Raju
O/o Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad-500 072,
5 Mr. B.Rama Raju (Whole Time Director), S/o Mr.Rama Linga Raju
O/o Maytas Hill county, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad-500072,
6 Mr. Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director), S/o Mr. Padam SainJain,
33, Babar Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110 001,
7 TheBranch Manager,, M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., Begumpet Brach,
2nd floor East Wing, ICICI Towers, Road No.1, Near Old airport , Hyderabad-16,
8 M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,, Central office/Registered office, Landmark, Race Course
Circle, Vadodra-500 016, Gujarat,,
(Respondent NO.3 to 6 are Profamra parties to this Writ Petition) ..
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order or direction one more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the
action of the 1st respondent commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in
CCIA.No.3021/2010 in CC.No.88/2010 by its order dt. 3-2-2011, filed under sec.8 of the
arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently
direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute to the sole arbitrator by rejecting the complaint
in CC.No.88/2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 5072 of 2011
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, rep. by its Authorised Signatory M. Teja Pratap Raju,
S/o. M. Hari Prasad Raju,, O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Nizampet Road,,
Hyderabad 500 072. ..
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,, rep.by its President,
Hyderabad.
2 Mr. Busani Rajsekhara Reddy, S/o. Mr. Rama Reddy
R/o. 1616 Brandon Park, Dr. Apartments, G Manchester,, MO, USA-63021,,
REp by GPA Holder Mr. Ram Reddy S/o. Mr. Yella Reddy R/o. H.No. 17-1-382/B/87,
Bhanu Nagar, Champapet, Hyd.
3 M. Theja Pratap Raju, S/o. M. Hari Prasasd Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
4 Mr. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju (Director), S/o. Satyanarayana Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
5 Mr. B. Rama Raju (Director), S/o. Rama Linga Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
6 Mr. Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director),, S/o. Padam Sain Jain
33, Babar Road, Bengali Market,, New Delhi 110 001,
(Respondent No. 3 to 6 are proforma parties to this writ petition).
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent Commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in
C.C.I.A. No. 3022/2010 in C.C.No. 89/2010 by its order dated 03-02-2011, filed under Sec. 8
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and
consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting
the Complaint in C.C. No. 89/ 2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent Commission and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 5073 of 2011
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, rep. by its Authorised Signatory M. Teja Pratap Raju,
S/o. M. Hari Prasad Raju,, O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Nizampet Road,,
Hyderabad 500 072. ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,, rep.by its President,
Hyderabad.
2 Venkatesh Govid Swamy, S/o. Govinda Swamy
R/o. Flat No.202, Second Floor, Royal Keertana Apartments,, H.No. 3-4-450,
Barkatpura,
Hyderabad 500 027,
3 Geetha Macherla, W/o. Venkatesh Govind Swamy
R/o. Flat No.202, Second Floor, Royal Keertana Apartments,, H.No. 3-4-450,
Barkatpura,
Hyderabad 500 027,
4 D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Krishnam Raju (Nominee)
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
5 Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, S/o. Satyanarayana Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
6 B. Rama Raju,, S/o. Rama Linga Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
7 Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director), S/o. Padam Sain Jain
33, Babar Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi 110 001, .,
8 The Branch Manager,, M/s. IDBI Bank Ltd., 1st Floor, Mahaveer House,
Chapel Road, Near L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh,, Near Old Air Port, Hyderabad-16,
9 M/s. IDBI Retail Asset Centre,, Murugesa Naiker Complex,
3rd Floor, 68-Greams Road, Chennai 600 006, .,
10 The General Manager,, M/s. IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Towers, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai 400 005,,
(Respondent No.4 to 7 are proforma parties to this writ petition) ..
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent Commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in
C.C.I.A. No. 3024/2010 in C.C.No. 91/2010 by its order dated 03-02-2011, filed under Sec. 8
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and
consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting
the Complaint in C.C. No. 91/ 2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent Commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 4 to 10 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 5074 of 2011
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. M. Teja Pratap
Raju,,
S/o. Mr. M. Hari Prasad Raju,, O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Nizampet Road,,
Hyderabad -500 072. ..
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,,
Reptd. by its President, Hyderabad.
2 Mr. M. Pavan Kumar, S/o. Mr. Naga Raja Prasad
R/o. 504, Pragathi Residency,, Street No. 9, East Maredupally,,
Secunderabad - 500 026. ..
3 Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County,, Bachupally,,
Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 072. ..
4 Mr. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, S/o. Mr. Satyanarayana Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad -500 072.,
5 Mr. B. Rama Raju, S/o. Mr. Rama Linga Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad -500 072.,
6 Mr. Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director),, S/o. Mr. Padam Sain Jain
33, Babar Road, Bengali Market,, New Delhi -110 001.,
7 The Assistant General Manager, RACPC.,
Patny Centre,, Zonal Office Building,,
M/s. State Bank of India, Secunderabad,
(Respondents No. 3 to 6 are proforma parties to this W.P.).
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent Commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in
C.C.I.A. No. 3001/2010 in C.C.No. 83/2010 by its order dated 03-02-2011, filed under Sec. 8
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and
consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting
the Complaint in C.C. No. 83/ 2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent Commission.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 7 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu51
WRIT PETITION NO: 28311 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised, Signatory Mr.M. Teja Pratap Raju
S/o M. Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad, A.P.,
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rep. by its President,
Hyderabad
2 Mr. Y. Sreenivas,, S/o. Mr. Y. Venataswamy,
R/o. Flat No. 407 "A" Block Vertex Pleasant Apartment,, Brindavan Colony,
Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500 072. ..
3 Mrs. Y. Neeraja Sreenivas,, W/o. Mr. Y. Sreenivas,
R/o. Flat No. 407 "A" Block Vertex Pleasant Apartment,, Brindavan Colony,
Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500 072.
4 Mr. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju,, Director, Maytas Properties LImited,
R/o. Plot No. H-17, Tulasi Apartments,, Madura Nagar, S.R. Nagar Post,,
Hyderabad 500 038.
5 Mr. Byrraju Rama Raju, Whole Time director,, Maytas Properties Limited,
R/O. Plot No. 1254A Road no. 63,, Jubille Hills, Hyderabad 500 033.,
6 Mr. Byrraju Teja Raju,, Director, Maytas Properties Limited,
R/o. Plot No. 1254 A, Road No. 63,, Jubilee Hills, hyderbad 500 033.,
7 M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P ) Ltd, Hyderabad
8 M/s. Himagiri Bio-tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
9 M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
10 M/s. Goman Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
11 M/s. Himagiri Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
12 M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyderabad.
13 M/s. Konar Green Lands P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
14 M/s. Medravati Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
15 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
16 M/s. Wardha Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
17 M/s. Vindhya Green Lands P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
18 M/s. Vamsadhara Agro P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
19 M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor, Amogh, Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016,,
Rep. by their Authorized Signatory D.V.S. Subba Raju ..
20 IDBI Bank Limited,, IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuff Parade,
Mumbai 400 005,, Rep. by its Managing Director.,
21 IDBI Bank Limited,, Retial Assets Centre, 3rd Floor,
Opp: Khan Latif Khan Complex, Abids,, Hyderabad 500 001.,
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue appropriate
writ order or direction one more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
1st respondent in dismissing the petitioners application in C.C.I.A. No. 1945/2010 in C.C.No.
37/2010 dated 30-9-2010 filed under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as
illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the
dispute to the sole Arbitrator by rejecting the complaint bin C.C.No. 37/2010 on the file of the
1st Respondent Commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 4 to 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 to 21 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri Prabhakar Sripada
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8,9,11,14,17&18 :Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy
WRIT PETITION NO: 5142 of 2011
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, rep. by its Authorised Signatory M. Teja Pratap Raju,
S/o. M. Hari Prasad Raju,, O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Nizampet Road,,
Hyderabad 500 072. ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,, rep.by its President,
Hyderabad.
2 Mrs. S. Radha, W/o. Mr. Seshidar Reddy
R/o. 1/A, Rajasree Apartments, H.No. 539/MIG,, .,
3 Mr. M Teja Prata Raju, S/o. M. Hari Prasad Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
4 Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju, S/o. Satyanarayana Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
5 B. Rama Raju, S/o. Rama Linga Raju
O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur,, Hyderabad 500 072,
6 Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director),, S/o. Padam Sain Jain
33, Babar Road, Bengali Market,, New Delhi 110 001,
7 The Branch Manager,, M/s. State Bank of India Ameerpet Branch Hyderabad
8 The Asst. General Manager,, RACPC Zonal Office Building,
M/s. State Bank of India, Panty Centre, Secunderabad,
(Respondent No.3 to 8 are proforma partie to this writ petition).
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith,the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent Commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in
C.C.I.A. No. 12/2011 in C.C.No. 94/2010 by its order dated 03-02-2011, filed under Sec. 8 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and
consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting
the Complaint in C.C. No. 94/ 2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent Commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 : None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 5190 of 2011
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, rep. by its Authorised Signatory M. Teja Pratap Raju,
S/o. M. Hari Prasad Raju,, O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Nizampet Road,,
Hyderabad 500 072. ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,, rep.by its President,
Hyderabad.
2 Mr. K Ramchander Rao, S/o. K Satyanarayana
R/o. H.No. 10-88/1, Chandur Nizamabad District, A.P. 503206,
3 Mr. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju Director Maytas Properties, Limited
R/o. H.No. H-17, Tulasi Apartments,, Madhura Nagar, SR Nagar Post, Hyderabad 38,
4 Byrraju Rama Raju, Whole time Director, Maytas Properties Limited,
R/o. Plot No. 1254A, Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills,, Hyderabad-033,
5 Byrraju Teja Raju, Director, Maytas Properties Limited,
R/o. Plot No. 1254A, Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills,,
(Respondent No.3 to 5 are proforma parties to this writ petition)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, or direction one more in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring
the action of the 1st respondent Commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in
C.C.I.A. No. 3032/2010 in C.C.No. 70/2010 by its order dated 03-02-2011, filed under Sec. 8
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and
consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting
the Complaint in C.C. No. 70/ 2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent Commission.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents : None Appeared
WRIT PETITION NO: 28137 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., rep.by its Authorised Singnatory, Mr. M.Teja Pratap Raju,
O/o 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,, Hyderabad-500016 AP.,,
2 Mr. M.Teja Pratap Raju, S/o Mr. M.Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,, Hyderabad-500016 AP.,,
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 A P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rep.by its President,
Hyderabad.
2 Mr. NAgarimadugu Kiran Kumar Reddy, S/o.mr. Chandra Sekhar Reddy
Rep. by their GPA Dr. V. Kedarnath, S/o. Mr. Indra Reddy, Plot No. 59 & 60,
Flat No. 402, Balaji Vamsee Enclave,,
Prashanth Nagar Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 70.
3 Mrs. Vallapureddy Vakula, W/o. Mr. N.Kiran Kumar REddy
Rep. by their GPA Dr. V. Kedarnath, S/o. Mr. Indra Reddy, Plot No. 59 & 60,
Flat No. 402, Balaji Vamsee Enclave,,
Prashanth Nagar Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 70.
4 The Branch Manager,, M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Begumpet, Road. No.1,, 2nd Floor, East Wing, ICICI Towers,,
Hyderabad - 500 016 ..
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue appropriate
writ order or direction one more in the nature of " writ of Mandamus " declaring the action of
the 1st respondent in dismissing the petitioners application in C.C.I.A No. 1762/2010 in
C.C.No. 48/2010 dated 30.09.2010 filed under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent to refer
the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting the complaint in c.C.No. 45/2010 on the file of
the 1st respondent Commission
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 4: None Appeared
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
WRIT PETITION NO: 17068 of 2010
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised, Signatory Mr.M. Teja Pratap Raju
S/o M. Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad, A.P.,
2 Mr.M. Teja Pratap Raju S/o M. Hari Prasad Raju, .,
O/o. 6-3-1186/5/A, III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad, A.P.,
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rep. by its President,
Hyderabad
2 Arumilli Anand, S/o. Mr. Krishnudu, R/o Flat No. 13,
Surya Complex, Durga Nagar Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad,
3 Mrs. S. Pragathi, W/o. Mr. A Anand, R/o Flat No. 13,
Surya Complex, Durga Nagar Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad,
4 M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P ) Ltd, Hyderabad
5 M/s. Himagiri Bio-tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
6 M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
7 M/s. Goman Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
8 M/s. Himagiri Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
9 M/s. Konar Green Lands P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
10 M/s. Medravati Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
11 M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
12 M/s. Wardha Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
13 M/s. Vindhya Green Lands P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
14 M/s. Vamsadhara Agro P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
15 M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Regd. Office at 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor, Amogh, Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad,
16 ICICI Bank Ltd., Begumpet Branch, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Near Old Airport
Begumpet, Secunderabad, (Respondent Nos. 4 to 15 are not necessary parties to this,
W.P.) ..
17 K.Narayana Rao S/o Sambamurthy,
R/o C5/23, Ground Floor, Grand Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
(R 17 is impleaded as per Court Order Dated 29/4/2011 in WPMP.No.286947/2010)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue a writ order
or direction one more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of
the orders of the 1st respondent in C.C.I.A. No. 1217/2010 in C.C.No. 12/2010 dt. 28-6-2010
on the file of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad and
quash the same as being unlawful and in excess of jurisdiction and for being in violation with
the provisions of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 apart from being illegal, arbitrary
unconstitutional
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4, 7, 9, 11 & 12 : Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent No.17: Sri K.S.Gopala Krishan
WRIT PETITION NO: 538 of 2011
Between:
1 M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.,, represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr.M.Teja Pratap Raju S/o.Mr.M.Hari Prasad Raju, O/o. Maytas Hill County, Bachupally
Village, Nizampet, Hyderabad -72. ..
..... PETITIONER
AND
1) A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
represented by its President, Hyderabad.
2) Penmatsa Ravi Varma, S/o.Subba Raju
R/o.25-44, Terra Cotta Circle, Herndon, VA-20171, USA,
rep. by his GPA Holder Savitri Penmatsa W/o.Subba Raju,
R/o.H.No.LIG-45, Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase-I, JNTU Road, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad.
3) D.V.S. Subba Raju (Nominee), S/o.D.Krishnam Raju
Flat No.102, Plot No.97, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar,, Yousufguda, Hyderabad
4) Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju (Director), S/o.Satyanarayana Raju
R/o.H.No.17, Tulasi Apartments, Madhura Nagar,, SR Nagar, Yousufguda,
Hyderabad - 500 038.,
5) Byrraju Rama Raju (Director), S/o.Rama Linga Raju
R/o. Plot No.1254A, Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills,, Hyderabad - 500 033.,
6) Ved Kumar Jain (Nominee Director), S/o.Padam Sain Jain
33, Babar Road, Bengali Market,, New Delhi 110 001.,
7) The Branch Manager,, M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., Begumpet Branch,
2nd Floor, East Wing, ICICI Towers, Road No.1,, near old air port, Hyderabad - 16.,
(Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are not necessary parties to this W.P.).
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances
stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble High Court will be pleased issue appropriate
writ, order or direction one more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the 1st respondent Commission in dismissing the petitioner's application in
C.C.I.A.No.2589/2010 in C.C.No.68/2010 by its order dated 16.12.2010, filed under Sec.8 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and
consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator by rejecting
the complaint in C.C.No.68/2010 on the file of the 1st Respondent Commission.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. S.NIRANJAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 7 : None Appeared
The Court made the following common Order:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
WP No.18276 of 2010 and batch
Common Order: (per Sri GM, J)
The point involved in all these three writ petitions is one
and the same, therefore they are being disposed of by this
common order.
For the purpose of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition
No.18276 of 2010 have been adverted to for the purpose of
dispose of these writ petitions. Writ Petition No.18276 of 2010
has been filed challenging the order dated 2-6-2010 in CCIA
No.190 of 2010 in CC No.76 of 2009 on the file of the A.P.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at
Hyderabad(for short "the State Commission") and
consequently sought a direction to dismiss the complaint for
want of inherent jurisdiction and to refer the disputes for
arbitration.
The respondents 1 and 2 are the individual customers of the respondent
no.4. The respondent no.3 is a bank. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a
Consumer Complaint before the State Commission against the petitioner and the
respondents 3,4 and 6 herein alleging deficiency in service and sought the
following prayer.
a) Direct to pay a sum of Rs.65 lakhs together with interest @ 24%
per annum from respective date of transfer of amounts from
individual savings accounts to PMS account
b) Direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs towards mental
agony and torture suffered by the complainants during the
course of transaction
c) Pay the costs of this complaint which is valued at Rs.3 lakhs."
Having received notice from the State Commission the
petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application No.190 of 2010 to
dismiss the complaint filed by the respondents 1 and 2 on the
ground that the State Commission had no inherent jurisdiction
to entertain the complaint and that there was an arbitration
clause contained in the agreement executed between the
respondent 1 and 2 and the petitioner. The respondents 3 and
4 also filed interlocutory application praying for dismissal of
the complaint by the State Commission on similar grounds.
By the common orders in both the interlocutory
applications dated 2-6-2010 the State Commission dismissed
the interlocutory applications on the ground that even though
there existed an arbitration clause still the Consumer Forums
are entitled to proceed with the matter. Hence, this writ
petition.
M/s Maytas Properties Limited has also filed batch of writ
petitions challenging the orders of the State Commission on
similar grounds. For the purpose of ready reference, the facts
in Writ Petition No.27689 of 2010 can be summarized below.
The petitioner company started a new venture at
Bachupally under the name and style of Maytas Hill County.
The 2nd and 3rd respondents approached the 1st petitioner for
purchasing Flats in the said Maytas Hill County Project. The
2nd and 3rd respondents agreed to purchase the flats.
According to the petitioners, there was delay in completing the
Hill Country Project because of the major events which are the
beyond the control of the opposite parties. The 2nd and 3rd
respondents herein, issued notice on 14-12-2009 and
thereupon the 1st petitioner invoked the arbitration clause
provided in the agreement of sale dated 27-12-2006 between
the 1st petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd respondents and referred
such disputes and claims made by the 2nd and 3rd
respondents herein to arbitration by a retired High Court
Judge, who has entered upon Arbitration vide Arbitration
Cases and the same have been posted for the appearance of
the 2nd and 3rd respondents to 7-4-2010.
Having received the notice from the sole Arbitrator the
2nd and 3rd respondents have approached the 1st respondent-
Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 and filed C.C.No.19 of 2010 seeking a direction
against the petitioners to handover the finished flat or to refund
the amount paid by the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
The petitioners on receipt of the notice to file written
version, have filed an application in I.A.No.1910 of 2010 in CC
No.19 of 2010 before the 1st respondent Commission under
Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking
to reject the complaint and refer the disputes raised by the 2nd
and 3rd respondents to the Sole Arbitrator. Upon hearing the
rival parties, the 1st respondent-Commission dismissed the
application filed by the petitioners herein. Hence, the above
writ petition.
Heard Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Writ
Petition Nos.18276 and 18277 of 2010, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy appearing for the
petitioners -Maytas Company, Sri Venkateswarlu Posani, Sri Prabhakar Sripada, and
Sri K.V. Siva Prasad, advocates appearing for the respondents in the respective writ
petitions.
Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that as legislature was aware of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the 1986 Act "), when the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration
Act) was prepared and therefore the Arbitration Act prevails over
the 1986 Act and it is all the more so, if the later act contains non-
obstante clause. It is further contended that under Section 34 of
the Arbitration Act, 1940 there is discretion to the judicial
authority whereas under Section 8 of the 1996 Act the legislative
command is that it is mandatory. Unless the State Commission
gives effect to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, they will be
violating Section 3 of the 1986 Act and that section 3 of the Act
does not permit the court to destroy other laws. Placing reliance
on the decisions reported in FAIR AIR ENGINEER'S PVT LTD
AND ANOTHER v. N.K. MODI ( (1) 1996(6) SCC 385), P. ANAND
GAJAPATHI RAJU v. P.V.G. RAJU ( (2) 2000(4) Supreme Court
Cases 539), MAGMA LEASING & FINANCE LTD v. POTLURI
MADHAVILATA ( (3) 2009 (10) Supreme Court Cases 103) it is
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
language of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is peremptory and the
court is under an obligation to refer parties to arbitration in the
given circumstances of the case and that the Arbitration Act is a
special Act, it prevails over Consumer Protection Act. It is further
contended on behalf of the petitioners that the dispute presented
by the complainants is not "service" within the meaning of Section
2(0) of the Act. Citing the constitution Bench judgment of the
Supreme Court reported in SBP & Co. V. PATEL ENGINEERING
LTD AND ANOTHER ( (4) 2005 (8) Supreme Court Cases 618),
and also decisions reported in SHRI SARWAN SINGH AND
ANOTHER v. SHRI KASTURI LAL ( (5) 1977 (1) Supreme Court
Cases 750 ), A.P. STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION v.
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR ( (6) 2000 (7) Supreme Court Cases 291),
GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM v. M. KRISHNAN ( (7 ) AIR
2010 SUPREME COURT 90 ), it is further contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that later enactment prevails,
all the more so, if the later act contains the non-obstante clause
and that when there is a special remedy provided under the
Arbitration Act the remedy under the Act 1986 is by implication
barred.
Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel while supporting the
contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners further
contended that the Consumer Forum has no primacy over
Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Consumer Protection Act.
Placing reliance on the decision reported in MORGAN
SECURITIES AND CREDIT PVT LTD v. MODI RUBBER LTD ( (8)
2007(3) SCC 686), BRANCH MANAGER MAGMA LEASING AND
FINANCE LTD's case ( supra ), EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD AND
OTHERS V. JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD AND ANOTHER
( (9) 2007 AIR SCW 6930), ORIENTAL ISURANCE CO LTD v
MEENA VARIYAL AND OTHERS ( (10) 2007 (5) SCC 428),
SANJAY DUTT v. STATE THROUGH CBI BOMBAY ( (11) 1994(5)
SCC 402 ), SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAVAN PVT LTD
AND ANOTHER v. PRAVEEN BHATIA AND OTHERS ( (12) 2009
AIR SCW 7576), SHREE SUBBALAXMI FABRICS PVT LTD v.
CHANDMAL BARADIA AND OTEHRS ( ( (13) 2005 AIR SCW
1807) and AGRIGOLD EXIMS LIMITED V SRILAKSHMI KNITS
AND WORENS ( (14) 2007 (3) SCC 686) he contended that the
Consumer Court has no discretion that the agreement contains a
clause of exclusive jurisdiction at Mumbai that it was not
challenged in the consumer forum, that the Court at the first
instance shall refer the matter for arbitration and that therefore the
impugned orders under challenge requires to be set aside.
On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents that existence of
Arbitration clause in an agreement between the parties would
not bar the Consumer Forum to entertain the complaint. It is
further stated that the Act 1986 was enacted with a view to
protect the interest of the Consumers of various goods and
services, and that the provisions of the Consumer Protection
Act are additional remedy and as such rights of the Consumer
cannot be taken away by any means. It is further submitted
that if the argument of the petitioners is given effect to, the
consequences and ramifications would lead to dangerous
situation as the Every Goods Supplier and Service Provider
would provide a condition in the Invoice/Bill to the effect that
any dispute is subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act
and that the poor consumers would have to suffer without
knowing the procedure as to how to go ahead with their
grievances. Apart from the above, it is contended, one law be
it Special Law or the General Law cannot come in the way of
other law to defeat the provisions of the other law, which is
enacted as beneficial legislation. It is further contended that
respondents 1 and 2 are consumers and their status is not
disputed and that arbitration agreement does not bar the
jurisdiction of consumer forum. In support of the contention,
reliance was placed on the decisions reported in DEEPAK
BAJAJ v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
((15) 2008 (16) Supreme Court Cases 14), FAIR AIR
ENGINERS PVT LTD's case ( supra ), BANK OF INDIA v.
KETAN PAREKH AND OTHERS ( (16) 2008(8) Supreme Court
Cases 148), judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.5896 of 2010 dated July 23, 2010, SUKANYA HOLDINGS
PVT. LTD v. JAYESH H. PANDYA AND ANOTHER ( (17) AIR
2003 SC 2252(1) ), BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN LTD AND
ANOTHER v. N.R. VAIRAMANI AND ANOTHER ( ( (18)
2004(8) Supreme Court Cases 579), SECRETARY,
THIRUMURUGAN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
SOCIETY v. M. LALITHA ( dead ) through L.Rs and others ((
19) 2004 (1) Supreme Court Cases 305 ) and the judgment of
the learned single Judge reported in SAIPRIYA ESTATES,
HYDERABAD v. V.V.L SUJATHA AND ANOTHER ((20)
2008(3) ALD 608).
Having heard the learned counsel on either side, in our view,
the point that is germane for consideration in these writ petitions is
as to whether the complaint is maintainable in view of the
existence of the Arbitration Clause in the agreement, and whether
the provisions of Arbitration Act, overrides the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before dealing with the said issues, we may consider as to
what constitutes service which has been defined under Section
2(1) (o) of the Act, 1986. According to Section 2(1)(o) of the Act
1986, " service" means service of any description which is made
available to potential users and includes , but not limited to, the
provisions of facilities in connection with banking, financing,
insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other
energy, board or lodging or both housing construction,
entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other
information, but does not include the rendering of any service free
of charge or under a contract of personal service. Section 2(g) of
the Act 1986 describes that " deficiency" means any fault,
imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature
and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by
or under any law for the time being in force or has been
undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a
contract or otherwise in relation to any service. Section 8 of the
Arbitration Act reads as under:
" 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there
is an arbitration agreement : - ( 1 ) A judicial
authority before which an action is brought in a
matter which is the subject of an arbitration
agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than
when submitting his first statement on the
substance of the dispute, refer the parties to
arbitration.
(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1)
shall not be entertained unless it is accompanies
by the original arbitration agreement or a duly
certified copy thereof.
( 3 ) Notwithstanding that an application has been
made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is
pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration
may be commenced or continued and an
arbitration award made.
Section 5 of the Arbitration Act reads as follows :
" 5. Extent of judicial intervention : Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no
judicial authority shall intervene except where so
provided in this Part."
The undisputed facts are that respondent nos 1 and 2
filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission
against the petitioner and respondents 3,4,5 and 6 for the
alleged deficiency in service. The Consumer complaint was
admitted and notices were issued to the other parties. The writ
petitioners filed application under section 8(1) of the Arbitration
Act to refer the matter to the Arbitration. According to the
respondents, the developer should have handedover Flats but
they did not do so and that therefore they moved the State
Consumer. According to petitioners, in view of the agreement
between the parties, as per section 8 of the Arbitration Act the
matter has to be referred to the Arbitrator. Be it noted that what
is relevant for the purpose of section 8 of the Arbitration Act is
that there should be existence of dispute with regard to a
particular liability arising out of the terms of the agreement.
The respondents case is that there was deficiency of service.
Section 3 of the Act 1986 envisages that the provisions of the
Act are in addition to and are not in derogation of any other
law in force.
Placing reliance on section 5 and 8 of the Arbitration Act,
is contended by the writ petitioners that the words contained in
section 3 of the 1986 Act that is ' not in derogation of the
provisions of any other law for the time being in force ' would be
given proper meaning and effect and that if the parties are not
relegated to the arbitration, the Act purports to operate in
derogation of the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The objects and
reasons of the 1986 Act is to provide a forum for speedy and
simple redressal of consumer disputes. Such avowed legislative
purpose cannot be either defeated or diluted on the premise that
Arbitration clause will take care of the situation. If that is done the
efficacy of remedy under the Act will be substantially curtailed and
in many cases the remedy will become illusory to the common
man. When a person offers/sell sites coupled with an assurance
of development of infrastructure/amenities/lay out approvals, such
an offer/sale and the obligations undertaken pursuant thereto is
"service" within the meaning of Section 2(1) (0) of the Act. On a
conspectus reading of the provisions of the Consumer Protection
Act, we are not inclined to accept the argument of the writ
petitioners. The Consumer Protection Act provides the additional
remedy. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment of the
Supreme Court reported in FAIR AIR ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,
SUPRA ). By reason of the provisions of the Section 3 of the Act
1986 we are therefore of the view that the remedies provided
thereunder are not in derogation of those provided under any
other law. The said Act supplements and not supplants the
jurisdiction of the civil courts or other statutory authorities. The
remedies that are available to an aggrieved party under the 1986
Act are wider. The provisions of the Act 1986 clearly demonstrate
that it was enacted for protecting the common man from wrongs
from wherefore the ordinary law for all intents and purport had
become illusory. A contrary view is likely to result in grave
hardship. The Court must not only see whether the power may be
derived by a reasonable implication from the provisions of the
statute, but also whether such powers are necessary for carrying
out the purpose of the provisions of the statute which confers
powers on the authority in its exercise of such power.
In SKYPAK COURIERS LTD v. TATA CHEMICALS LTD (
( 2000 (5) SCC 294), considering the provisions of Section 2
and 7 of the Arbitration Act and the Act 1986, it was inter alia
held by the Supreme Court that existence of an arbitration
clause in the agreement is not a bar to the entertainment of
complaint by the redressal agency under the Act as the
remedy under the Act 1986 is in addition to the provisions of
any other law.
In M. LALITHA's case ( supra ) the Supreme Court considering the
provisions of Sections 3, 11, 17 and 21 of the Act, 1986 it was held by the
Supreme Court that Act 1986 should be interpreted broadly positively and
purposefully having regard to the additional/extended jurisdiction conferred
under section 3 of the Act 1986. In BANK OF INDIA's case ( supra ) it
was inter alia held by the Supreme Court as follows
" .. Where both the enactments have the non obstante clause
then in that case, the proper perspective would be that one
has to see the subject and the dominant purpose for which
the special enactment was made and in case the dominant
purpose is covered by that contingencies, then
notwithstanding that the Act might have come at a later point
of time still the intention can be ascertained by looking to the
objects and reasons."
In a recent judgment reported in Deepak Bajaj's
case ( supra ), the Supreme Court considering various cases
reiterated that the judgment should not be read as a statute
and should be read as a whole while taking into consideration
the attending circumstances. The learned single Judge of this
Court in SAIPRIYA ESTATES's case, while following the
judgments of the Supreme Court in FAIR AIR ENGINEERS
PVT. LTD's case ( supra ) with regard to section 3 of the 1986
Act and the ratio in Lucknow Development Authority's case
( supra) held that the Act 1986 being a special
enactment creates additional remedy in favour of the
consumers.
The Supreme Court in Lucknow Development
Authority v. M.K. Gupta ( 1994 (1) SCC 243), while
considering the various definitions such as 'Consumer',
'Service', 'Trader', 'Unfair Trade Practice', held that the
legislature has attempted to widen the reach of the Act. Each
of these definitions are in two parts, one, explanatory and the
other expandatory. The explanatory or the main part itself
uses expressions of wide amplitude indicating clearly its wide
sweep, then its ambit is widened to include activities which
otherwise would have been beyond its natural import. After
referring to the judgments reported in Regional Director,
Employees' State Insurance Corpn v. High Land Coffee
Works of P.F.X. Saldanha and Sons [(1991) 3 SCC 617]; CIT
v. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad [(1971) 3 SCC 550]; and
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (AIR 1960 SC
610) the Supreme Court observed thus:
"The provisions of the Act thus have to be
construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the
purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit
oriented legislation. The primary duty of the Court
while construing the provisions of such an Act is to
adopt a constructive approach subject to that it
should not do violence to the language of the
provisions and is not contrary to the attempted
objective of the enactment."
In construing the meaning of 'consumer' as defined
in Section 2(d) of the Act (as it stood before the
Amendment Act 62/2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003, which
inserted the words "but does not include a person
who avails of such services for any commercial
purpose") and the explanation was made
applicable to clause (i) and (ii), the Court observed
thus:
"It is in two parts. The first part deals with
goods and the other with services. Both
parts first declare the meaning of goods and
services by use of wide expressions. Their
ambit is further enlarged by use of inclusive
clause. For instance, it is not only purchaser
of goods or hirer of services but even those
who use the goods or who are beneficiaries
of services with approval of the person who
purchased the goods or who hired services
are included in it. The legislation has taken
precaution not only to define 'complaint',
'complainant', 'consumer' but even to mention
in detail what would amount to unfair trade
practice by giving an elaborate definition in
clause (r) and even to define 'defect' and
'deficiency' by clauses (f) and (g) for which a
consumer can approach the Commission.
The Act thus aims to protect the economic
interest of a consumer as understood in
commercial sense as a purchaser of goods
and in the larger sense of user of services.
The common characteristics of goods and
services are that they are supplied at a price
to cover the costs and generate profit or
income for the seller of goods or provider of
services. But the defect in one and
deficiency in other may have to be removed
and compensated differently. The former is,
normally, capable of being replaced and
repaired whereas the other may be required
to be compensated by award of the just
equivalent of the value or damages for loss."
The Supreme Court while interpreting meaning of word
'Service' (as it stood before Amendment Act 62/2002 which
inserted words "but not limited to") and observed as under:
"It is in three parts. The main part is followed by
inclusive clause and ends by exclusionary
clause. The main clause itself is very wide. It
applies to any service made available to
potential users. The words 'any' and 'potential'
are significant. Both are of wide amplitude. The
word 'any' dictionarily means 'one or some or
all'. In Black's Law Dictionary it is explained
thus, "word 'any' has a diversity of meaning and
may be employed to indicate 'all' or 'every' as
well as 'some' or 'one' and its meaning in a
given statute depends upon the context and
the subject-matter of the statute". The use of
the word 'any' in the context it has been used in
clause (o) indicates that it has been used in
wider sense extending from one to all. The
other word 'potential' is again very wide. In
Oxford Dictionary it is defined as 'capable of
coming into being, possibility'. In Black's Law
Dictionary it is defined as "existing in possibility
but not in act. Naturally and probably expected
to come into existence at some future time,
though not now existing; for example, the future
product of grain or trees already planted, or the
successive future installments or payments on
a contract or engagement already made." In
other words service which is not only extended
to actual users but those who are capable of
using it are covered in the definition. The
clause is thus very wide and extends to any or
all actual or potential users. But the legislature
did not stop there. It expanded the meaning of
the word further in modern sense by extending
it to even such facilities as are available to a
consumer in connection with banking, financing
etc. Each of these are wide-ranging activities in
day to day life. They are discharged both by
statutory and private bodies. In absence of any
indication, express or implied there is no
reason to hold that authorities created by the
statute are beyond purview of the Act. When
banks advance loan or accept deposit or
provide facility of locker they undoubtedly
render service. A State Bank or nationalised
bank renders as much service as private bank.
No distinction can be drawn in private and
public transport or insurance companies. Even
the supply of electricity or gas which throughout
the country is being made, mainly, by statutory
authorities is included in it. The legislative
intention is thus clear to protect a consumer
against services rendered even by statutory
bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person
against whom complaint is made is a statutory
body but whether the nature of the duty and
function performed by it is service or even
facility."
The Supreme Court further examined the question whether housing
construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body was
service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2 (1) of the 1986 Act as it
stood prior to the inclusion of expression 'housing construction' in the definition
of service by ordinance No.24 of 1993 and observed thus:
"As pointed out earlier the entire purpose of widening
the definition is to Include in it not only day to day
buying and selling activity undertaken by a common
man but even such activities which are otherwise not
commercial in nature yet they partake of a character
in which some benefit is conferred on the
consumer. Construction of a house or flat is for the
benefit of person for whom it is constructed. He may
do it himself or hire services of a builder or
contractor. The latter being for consideration is
service as defined in the Act. Similarly when a
statutory authority develops land or allots a site or
constructs a house for the benefit of common man it
is as much service as by a builder or contractor.
The one is contractual service and other statutory
service. If the service is defective or it is not what
was represented then it would be unfair trade
practice as defined in the Act. Any defect in
construction activity would be denial of comfort and
service to a consumer. When possession of property
is not delivered within stipulated period the delay so
caused is denial of service. Such disputes or claims
are not in respect of immoveable property as argued
but deficiency in rendering of service of particular
standard, quality or grade. Such deficiencies or
omissions are defined in sub-clause (ii) of clause (r)
of Section 2 as unfair trade practice. If a builder of a
house uses substandard material in construction of a
building or makes false or misleading representation
about the condition of the house then it is denial of
the facility or benefit of which a consumer is entitled
to claim value under the Act. When the contractor or
builder undertakes to erect a house or flat then it is
inherent in it that he shall perform his obligation as
agreed to. A flat with a leaking roof, or cracking wall
or substandard floor is denial of service. Similarly
when a statutory authority undertakes to develop
land and frame housing scheme, it, while performing
statutory duty renders service to the society in
general and individual in particular. The entire
approach of the learned counsel for the development
authority in emphasising that power exercised under
a statute could not be stretched to mean service
proceeded on misconception. It is incorrect
understanding of the statutory functions under a
social legislation. A development authority while
developing the land or framing a scheme for housing
discharges statutory duty the purpose and objective
of which is service to the citizens. As pointed out
earlier the entire purpose of widening the definitions
is to include in it not only day to day buying of goods
by a common man but even such activities which are
otherwise not commercial but professional or service-
oriented in nature. The provisions in the Acts,
namely, Lucknow Development Act, Delhi
Development Act or Bangalore Development Act
clearly provide for preparing plan, development of
land, and framing of scheme etc. Therefore if such
authority undertakes to construct building or allot
houses or building sites to citizens of the State either
as amenity or as benefit then it amounts to rendering
of service and will be covered in the expression
'service made available to potential users'. A person
who applies for allotment of a building site or for a flat
constructed by the development authority or enters
into an agreement with a builder or a contractor is a
potential user and nature of transaction is covered in
the expression 'service of any description'. It further
indicates that the definition is not exhaustive. The
inclusive clause succeeded in widening its scope but
not exhausting the services which could be covered
in earlier part. So any service except when it is free of
charge or under a constraint of personal service is
included in it. Since housing activity is a service it
was covered in the clause as it stood before 1993."
It is to be noted that the 1986 Act is a special Act having
additional extended jurisdiction, more so section 3 of the Act
1986 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to
other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is a
clear bar. As noted above, when a person offers/sells of
sites/plots coupled with an assurance of development of
infrastructure/amenities/lay out approvals, such an offer/sale
and the obligations undertaken pursuant thereto is "service"
within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(o) of the Act. In FAIR AIR
ENGINEERS PVT LTD AND ANOTHERS case (SUPRA ),
rejecting the contention that the proceedings under the 1986
Act could not continue in view of the Arbitration Clause in the
agreement entered into between the parties, the Supreme
Court observed as under :
"15. Accordingly, it must be held that the provisions of the Act are to be construed widely to give effect to the object
and purpose of the Act. it is seen that Section 3 envisages that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and are not in
derogation of any other law in force. It is true, as rightly contended by Shri Suri, that the words " in derogation of the
provisions of any other law for the time being in force' would be given proper meaning and effect and if the complaint is
not stayed and the parties are not relegated to the arbitration, the Act purports to operate in derogation of the provisions
of the Arbitration Act. Prima facie, the contention appears to be plausible but on construction and conspectus of the
provisions of the Act we think that the contention is not well founded. Parliament is aware of the provisions of the
Arbitration Act and the Contract Act, 1872 and the consequential remedy available under Section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, i.e. to avail of right of civil action in a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the Act provides the
additional remedy."
On consideration of the entire material on record, we are
of the view that the complaints as presented by the each of the
complaints before the consumer fora are maintainable and are
amenable to jurisdiction of the consumer fora and that the
orders under challenge do not require any interference by this
Court either on the ground of inherent jurisdiction or on the
premise of arbitration clause. The Consumer Fora do not
suffer from lack of jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.
It is nextly argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the decision in FAIR AIR ENGINERS's case (
supra ) is per incurium in the light of the decision in PATEL
ENGINEER LTD 's case ( 2 supra). This argument is also
meritless for the reason that the Supreme Court in FAIR AIR
ENGINER'S CASE ( supra ) while sustaining the order of the
National Commission in declining to refer the dispute for
arbitration by holding that Section 3 of the 1986 Act envisages
that its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of
any other law in force held that the Legislature intended to
provide a remedy in addition to the remedies, such as
arbitration, and that in view of the object of the 1986 Act and
the provisions of Section 3 thereof it would be appropriate for
the Fora created under the said Act to proceed with the
matters in accordance with the provisions of the said Act
rather than relegating the parties to arbitration proceedings as
provided by a contract entered into between the parties.
Though Section 8 of the Arbitration Act couched in a
peremptory language and that the judicial authority has to
refer the dispute to arbitration once it is satisfied that an
arbitration agreement exists between the parties and that the
dispute raised before it is covered by such an agreement, still
the 1986 Act being a special enactment, which created an
additional remedy in favour of the consumers for raising
consumer dispute before the consumer forum, Section 8 of
the Act cannot take away such a remedy from the consumers
as in the civil suits. In PATEL ENGINEERS CASE ( 3
SUPRA), the question under consideration was the nature of
the function of the Chief Justice under Section 11 of the
Arbitration Act. A Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court
in PATEL ENGINEERING's case ( supra) while overruling the
decision in KONKAN RLY. CORPORATION LTD v. RANI
CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD ( (2002 (2) SCC 388) held that the
power exercised by the Chief Justice of a High Court or the
Chief Justice of India under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act
is not an administrative power but it is a quasi-judicial power
and in case of designation of a Judge of the High Court or of
the Supreme Court, the power that is exercised by the
designated Judge would be that of the Chief Justice as
conferred by the statute. It is noteworthy that a case is an
authority for what it decides and the Court shall not place
reliance on cases out of context as the decisions are not
statutes. In this regard it is apt to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court reported in BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN
LTD v. N.R. VAIRAMANI ( (2004(8) SCC 579 ). The
relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :
" Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a
world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of
cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.
The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying
precedents have become locus classicus :
" Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity
between one case and another is not enough because even a
single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding
such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases
as said by Cardozo ) by matching the colour of one case against
the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the
line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at
all decisive."
In HINDUSTHAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD v. PINKCITY
MIDWAY PETROLEUMS ( (2003 (5) ALD 26(SC) ), issue that
fell for consideration was whether in view of the mandatory
provisions of section 8 of the Arbitration Act, the civil court had
the power to decide the dispute raised in a civil suit without
relegating the parties to Arbitration, wherein the provisions of
Act 1986 were not for consideration at all. In the
circumstances, the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in
FAIR AIR ENGINERS PVT LTD's case and also the ratio in
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY's case ( supra ) will
cover the points urged in these writ petitions and therefore we
are not inclined to refer to the other citations relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioners which are not helpful to the
facts and circumstances of the present case. In case of
conflict between special law and general law beneficial law
prevails. Arbitration law is general law and the consumer
protection act is a special law and is a beneficial legislation.
The remedy provided under 1986 Act is not in derogation of
the other remedies to a party. In this regard it is expedient
and necessary to refer to the judgment reported in LUCKNOW
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY's case ( supra ), which
elaborately considered the scheme and object of the Act 1986.
Though there is a qualitative difference between the language
of Section 34 of the 1940 Act and Section 8 of the 1996 Act
and the case arose under the 1940 Act, the Supreme Court
still referred to Section 8 of the 1996 Ordinance. In PATEL
ENGINEERS's case ( supra ) there was a passing reference to
the Consumer Protection Act. The conclusions reached by the
Supreme Court at para 142 of the said judgment are therefore
binding precedent. It is also to be noteworthy there is no
finding that the Arbitration Act prevails over the Consumer
Protection Act.
Having regard to the interpretation given by the Supreme
Court in FAIR AIR ENGINEERS PVT. LTD ( supra) with regard
to Section 3 of the 1986 Act and the ratio in LUCKNOW
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( supra), we are of the view that
the 1986 Act, being a special enactment, created an
additional remedy in favour of the consumers to raise
consumer disputes before the Fora constituted under the said
Act, and that Section 8 of the Arbitration Act does not have the
effect of taking away such a remedy from the consumers as in
the case of civil suits, which are in the nature of common law
remedies. If a party chooses to avail a remedy other than the
consumer dispute, he shall be free to do so because the
remedy under the 1986 Act is not in derogation of the other
remedies available to such a party and he cannot be denied
such right on the ground of availability of an alternative
remedy, such as Arbitration Act as Section 3 of the 1986 Act
is intended to provide an additional remedy to a party and the
same is not meant to deny such a remedy to him. Further, by
virtue of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act the parties
can undoubtedly resort to filing of the complaint as specified
under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The
restriction as to the inherent jurisdiction would not come in the
way for the complainant to file the complaint, provided he
fulfils the conditions mentioned in section 17 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the State
Commission does not suffer from any legal infirmity and it cannot
be said that there is inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain and
adjudicate the complaint filed by respondents before it.
For the foregoing discussion, the writ petitions are meritless
and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
___________
GM, J
-------------
KGS, J
Dated : 29-04-2011 /kk
