The High Court · 2025

1. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Branch, Nizamabad, Rep by G. Laxminarayana S/o. Bhoomaiah Age.37 years, now rep. by A. Ivlallikarjun S/o. Srinivas, Age.36 years Occ. Divisional [Vlanager R/o. Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT [FINANcE Co.]

2. Aambai lalqi B?Lur S/o. Narsimha chary H.NO. 1-t-353, Vinaknagar , Nizamabad-503003

3. CH.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Ranga reddy H.N0.1'1-1-15'17l1 ,Chendra Shekar Colony Nizamabad. 503002 (Resp. No.2 and 3 are formal and not necessary parties ) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT 1 & 3 IN THE ARBITRATION CASE lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings of the Ex-parte Award including proceedings of E.P.No 103/2019 irr Award of Arbitration Case No,107i2t)15 on the file of The Hon'ble District Judge, at Nizamabad, (same was made orrcr to the Family Judge at Nizamabad) till pending disposal of the main CRP in he interest of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y S YELLA NAND GUPTA Counsel for the Respondents: SRt N ARAVIND REPRESEI'lTlNG SRI N SRIKANTH GOUD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Civil Revision Petition No.332 of 2O2O ORDER: (Per the Hon'bLe Si Justtce Abhinand Kumar Shauili) This Civil Revision Petition is liled aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2019 passed in I.A.No. 1406 of 2Ol9 rn Arbitration Appeal No. NIL by the learned Principal District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. Heard Sri Y.S. Yella Nand Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Aravind, learned counsel representing Sri N. Srikanth Goud, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner has taken finance from respondent No. 1. However, due to hnalcial crisis, he could not repay the amount. In those circumstances, respondent No. t has initiated arbitration proceedings by appointing a sole Arbitrator. Though the petitioner has filed Vaka-lat before the Arbitrator, he could not contest the said case and ex parte award dated 23.05.2016 was passed in Arbitration .- I ; : I ! i I I I I I I 2 a ':t case No. 107' of 20 15 by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has not communicated the award to the petiticrrer in terms of Section 31 (5) of the Arbitration and ConcilizLtion Act, 1996 (for short, '1.he Act'). Consequently, the petiLioner was not aware of the ex parte award passed by tLL,: Arbitrator. It has only corne to the knowledge of the petitic,ner during the pendency o1 E.P.No.103 of 2019, filed by respondent No. 1 for execution of the award. In those circr: mstances. the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Sr::tion 34 of the Act on 21'.O9.2OI9 along with an atrplication i.e., I.A.No. 1406 of 2Ol9 to condone the delay of 118 days. However, orL 16.72.2019, the Tribunal has ciismissed the said I.A. on the ground that the delay cannc t be condoned as the petitioner was aware of the arbitratio n proceedings, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had r:ontended that as per Section 31 (5) of Arbitration Act, an ewa_rd becomes enforceable only when it is communicated [o the parties Admittedly, in the instant case, Arbitr-r:.tor has not t 3 communicated the award to the petitioner. As per Section 34 (3) of Act, an application for setting aside a, award must be filed within 9O days, with an additional grace period of 3o days, which cannot be further extended. Since the award was not communicated, the limitation period should commence from the date on which the petitioner gained knowledge of the proceedings. This fact was not properly appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore. appropriate orders be passed in the Civil Revision petition by setting aside the order dated L6.12.2O7g passed by the Tribunal 1n I.A.No.1406 of 2Ol9 in Arbitration Appeal No.Nil, and further direct the trial Court to mrmber the Arbitration application and hear the case on merits.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Lhe respondent No. t had contended that the petitioner has appeared before the Arbitrator and filed Vakalat but subsequently failed to pursue the proceedings. The Arbitrator has no other option except to pass the ex parte award. It is further submitted that the award was qp4gmunicated to the"_egtitioner with the endorsement t? '.' 4 'addressee [eft'. Hence, the petitioner was aware of the arbitration proceedings. In view of the law l:id down by the Honourabie Supreme Court in Gc'uernmcnt of Maharashtra. (Water Resource Depantrnent) a M/S Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Priuate Limitedl, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the condone delay applir:ation, since the delay of more than 120 days cannot be c,ondoned. Therefore, there are nD merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed

6. This Court having considered the saio. subrnissions is of the view that the award passed by the Arlritrator was not duiy communicated to the petitioner as pet Section 31 (5) of the Arbitration Act, which would ltlean that the petitioner rvas not aware of the ex partr award dated

23.05.2016. Therefore, the matter is remil.led back to the trial Court to re-examine the case afr:sh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. t is needless to say that thr: order dated 16.12.2OL9 passed in I.A.No.14O6 I zo: r 1o; scc .too /' /,4' 5 of 2Ol9 in Arbitration Appeal No. NIL by the trial Court is set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.

7. With the above said observations/directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

8. As a sequel, miscellaleous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal District Judge at Nizamabad' 2. One CC to SRI Y S YELLA NAND GUPTA Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI N SRIKANTH GOUD Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two GD CoPies SS/ABK k HIGH COURT DATED:2410612025 ,- .:,- ,\: i. ,i--. "a. \ 07 0tl iP5 ORDER CRP.No.332 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS G(op\"d