Telangana High Court
P. Nagender Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 18 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.33264 of 2023
Mr. D. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners
ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging an
Arbitral Award dated 12.10.2021. The Writ Petition was filed on
01.12.2023.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a declaration that the
execution proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 in
E.P.Nos.250/2022 and 47/2023 on the file of the learned
Principal District Judge, Wanaparthy, for enforcement of the
impugned Award is illegal. The petitioners have also sought a
declaration that the execution proceedings filed by the
respondent No.3 for enforcement of the Award is illegal and
contrary to law. The petitioners have not prayed for any stay of
the execution proceedings filed by the respondent No.3.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
4. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the petitioners were not given notice or
opportunity to conduct the arbitration proceedings and that the
petitioners came to know of the Award only in 2022 from the
execution proceedings.
5. We have perused the pleadings in the Writ Petition.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof do not mention any date on which
the petitioners came to know of the impugned Award save and
except a general statement that the petitioners' knowledge of the
Award was only after filing of the execution petitions.
6. It is settled law that The Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 ('the 1996 Act') is a complete code where an aggrieved
person can challenge the Award under section 34 of the 1996
Act. Section 34(2)(a)(iii) provides a party may take the ground of
absence of proper notice of the appointment of an Arbitrator or
of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present
his/her case. The petitioners have not been able to show any
ground or plead any reason for not filing an application for
setting aside of the Award under section 34.
7. It is further relevant that section 34(3) of the 1996 Act
gives an Award-debtor three months and thirty days from the
date of receiving the Award to apply for setting aside of the
Award. Hence, the petitioners could very well have challenged
the Award within the timeframe provided under section 34(3) by
showing the date of receipt of the impugned Award. The
petitioners have not relied on any decision for challenging the
Award by invoking the extraordinary powers of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Serosoft
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. V. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 1 reinforces
the legal position with regard to maintainability of a Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging an
arbitral Award and limits interference only where the Award is
completely perverse on the face of it. The Writ Petition does not
2025 SCC OnLine SC 22
take any of these grounds save and except that the petitioners
were not put to notice or knowledge of the arbitral Award. There
is also no explanation as to why the Writ Petition was filed two
years after the Award which is dated 12.10.2021.
9. We accordingly find no merit in the Writ Petition.
W.P.No.33264 of 2023, along with all connected applications, is
accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand
vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
DATE: 18.08.2025
TJMR
