D.No. 24-126, Ranga Reddy District- 500 037. 1. O. Puspa @ v. Pushpa, W/9r Ol Kashappa, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Qus!1e99, Rl/o. D.No- .?4-1?6,. Ranga--Reddy"trtagar

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IA NO: 2 ctF 2021 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affic'avit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend ttre order passed in Arbitration o.p. No. 1969 of 2016 dated 21-08_2020 on the c.urt of rX Additionar chief Judge, city civir court At Hyderabad, pending dir;posal of CMA. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: M/s' Shiram citv Union Finance.Limited, known as M/s. shriram citv Union Finance Limited-, shiv_am eranir', il-p-iei;& ;y ii; o.p.i."n""iii"r"'JXi Authorized. si gnatory sri. x,c. ol,inta iiilU;' K v. {Avh^rn, hi.i i-"iiiriiE years;, Rt/o Himayath' Nagar, Hyderabad. AND ...pETtTtONER/RESpONDENT No. I 1 -- - '-y-" O. P.rsoa (O Busineds, F/ Quthbullapur, V. iy9hp". W./g, O. Kashappa, Aged about 55 years, Occ. I D.N9 24-126, Ransa Eeddy'N;sal-'ei[","i1i' ron, Ranga Reddy District- sob 037. 2. Puthcabi, Wo. B. Jaoannath,.Aged about 75 years, Occ. Housewife. R/o. RJXS;31;1,',i:$xn8SrneoovN;-s;'-d#;il'i"ib"A'-o?nbli6;;:.(""# 3. B. Jagannath. Aoed abouj 55_ years, Occ. Nil, Rt/o. D.No. 24_126, Ranoa Reddv Nasar, Bai-anagar, ton, otinuuhapii, nl'i,g;, H"aoy Di.trtt_ soo btiy- '0ff l;^l$i,iJ&t"i_!f [?dt/^fl1""1t;,:L:g#ild%ih[;,i:X?:'ilX1"; 5. S. Pulnachander Rao. S/o, 9 Saidaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. private [ff#13& r# o' .,, z -z-'r oi s t 2o7c' - - X, il,.;i a lth i'a;;,,',"tli tr,' eis ri Reddy Diskict- SOO OeZ'. t ...RESPONDENTS/APPELLATS Fiq,",'fi"!L"si"#',89' ssi'l;'&il'J",:,i'9q,";"?"1fi Arbitrator, D No 3-6- [-v"oLr,iiilo't'HErpo",]a"Jni'ruo.0 is not a necessar r"nr.oo,nl; ,{Tavathnasar, ...RESPONDENT/RESpONDENT No. 2 Petitiorr under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to permit the F,etitioner/respondent to withdraw the amount of Rs.11,39,s661 (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty Nine thousands Five Hundred sixty six onry) arong with accrued interest which has been deposited in r.A. No. 14g7 0f 20.r9 before the lX Additioral Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellants and respondent Nos 1 to 5inl.A.no.1l2024 : Sri K. DURGA representing Gounsel forthe Respondent No. 1 and Petitioner in l.A,NO.1/201 4 SRI SATISH KUMAR BIJAPURI : Sri N. Srikanth Goud The Court delivered the following: JUOGMENT THE HIf,N'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA EHALAPATHI RAO c.M No.246 of 20/2t .4. JUDGMENT: Tht: present appear is filed assailing the Award passed in Arbitration o.p.No. 1969 of 2oL6, dt.2r.o}.2o20, on the fire of the IX Aclditional chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the l.t appeilant as the prirLcipal borrower and appeilants No.2 to s as guarantors, have availed loan of Rs.12 lakhs from the l"t respondent-Finance company for business expansion by executing an Agreement, dt.03.03 .2o14, and subsequentry defaulted in payment of the amount. on that, the 1"t respondert filed Arbitration case No.33 of 2o15 before the 2,d responde,t/sole Arbitrator craiming Rs.2 2,Tg,rs2/_ and the 2nd respo:edent after appreciation of the factuar issues by conducting a proper enquiry has passed the award directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.22 ,zg,L32/- along with 2 future interest @ lOo/o p.&., on the said amount from the date of reference of the claim petition till the date of award and @ 18% p.&., from the date of awa.rd till the date of realization.

3. Aggrieved by the said arvard. the appellants herein f,rled Arbitration OP l\o.1969 of 2OL6 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and the learned Addl. Chief Judge after appreciation of evidence has disnrissed the said OP directing the appellants to pay the said amount. However, modified the rate of interest to l2oh p.a. flrorn the date of reference of arbitration till passing of the award and 60/o p.a. from the date of award till the date of realization.

4. Assailing the said order, the present appeal has been fi1ed.

5. Fleard Sri K.Durga Prasad. learned counsel representing Sri B.Satish I(nmar, for apoellants, Sri N.Srikanth Goud, 3 learned ccutrsel appearing for respondent No.1, and perused the record.

6.Leartred'counselappearingfortheappellantssubmits that the (lourt below without appreciation of evidence and also the Award passed by the sole Arbitrator under erroneous consideral-ion of facts, has disrnissed the oP, and prayed to allow this aPPeal.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearirrg for the 1"t respondent would submit that the order under challenge is justified and needs no interference by this Court'

8. I have taken note of the respective submissions made' g. A perusal of the ord.er passecl by the learned Addl' chief Judge, who is the fact finding authority, shows that the he had apprr:ciated the evideuce ad.duced on both sides and gave categoriceil findings while dismissing the appeal. The learned Addl. ch.ef Judge, to arrive at such conclusion, has also followed the ratio laid down by the Apex court in Naaodaga 4 Jlfcrss Entertainment a. J.M.Combinesr wherein it was held as under: "The Court would not be justified in re-appraising the material on record and substituting its own view in place of the arbitrator's view. where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or the arbitrator has not followed the statutory legal position, then and then only it would be justified in interfering with the award published by the arbitrator. once the arbitration has applied his mind to the matter before him, the court cannot reappraise the matter as if it were an appeal and even if two views are possible, the view taken by the arbitrator would prevail."

10. Thus, this court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is justified and needs no interference by this court. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 1 1. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the l't appellant, who is the principal borrower, is a ' lzOtS; 5 Supreme Courr Cases 69g 5 street vegetable vendo' and is facing financial ciifficulties and seeks inclulgence of this court to modify the rate of interest.

12. The learned Addl. chief Judge has already shown indulgenr:e b! modifying the rate of interest to r2o/o p.o., from the date of reference 'f arbitration till passing of the award and @ 6,0/o p.a., from the date of award tilt the date of realizatiot..t. However, in view of the submission made by the learned crluosel for appellants that the 1st appellant, being a street vegetable vendor, is facing financial hardship, this court fin<ls it just and reasonable to further rnodi$r the rate of interest. 13- In view of the above discussion, the impugned Award passed in Arbitration o.p.No. Lg6g of 2016, dt.21.og.2o2o is hereby confirmed insofar as the claim of the 1.t respondent for a sum of Rs.22 ,79,L32/-, but modified with respect to the rate of inte'rest to T .so/o p.a., from the date of reference till the date of pa,ssing of the Award and 60/o p.a., from the date of 6 Award till the date of realization. The appellants shall pay the said amount by duly giving credit to the amount, already paid or deposited to the credit of the case. The l"t respondent is directed to file a fresh calculation memo and upon deposit of the amount, is permitted to withdraw the same.

14. Accordingly, the CMA is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. sd/- A.v.s.s.c.s.M. JOINT //TRUE COPY// SEGTION OFFICER To,

1. The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (With Records if any)

2. One CC to Sri Satish Kumar Bijapuri, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N. Srikanth Goud, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/PR W HIGH COURT DATED: 2311012025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.246 of 2021 toR THE S o C) t * ll 6 i{A8 ztlzfr * F)A DISPOSING OF CMA @, 1 \t/ L