The High Court · 2025

Petition und6 tiection '151 of c.p.c., praying that in the circLrrs.ances stated in the affidavit filed rn ;r;port of the petition, the High court may be pleas,:d to vacate the lnterim order grantsc r)'/ this court on 8-4-2oi9, in lA No. 1 of 2019 in lRp No. gg2 of 2019. Counsel for the Petit (rn er :SRI. P SRI HARSHA REDDY (sc FoR S|NGAREN| COLLTERiES CO.LTD) Counsel for the ResF c ndent No.1 :SRl SUNIL B.GANU Smt.Manjari S.Gany representin g Counsel for the Res:c rdent No.2 : --- The Court made the following : ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK CIVL REVISION PETITION No.882 of 2019 ORDER:1fe.l he Hon'hle Si Jusrice T. Vinocl Kwnar)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggricved by the docket order dated 31 .12.2018 in Metno. S.R. No.6041 of 201 8 in C.O.P. No. 84 of 2018 passed by the Commercial Court ,rudge - cum - XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hydelabad.

2. Heard Sri P. Sri Harsha Rcddy, learned counsel for the petitionel and Smt. Ivlanjali S. Ganu lcarned courtsel representing Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learr red cormsel for the respoudent No. I and perused the record.

3. The respondent No. I hercin filcd the aforcsaid C.O.P under Section 34 of the Arbitratior and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act, 1996') chatlenging the Arbitration Award dated

16.04.2018. The petitioner herein is the responderrt No.1 before tl're court below

4. The pel.itioner herein, filed the underlying merno raising a preliminary objection that the Commercial Court, Hyderabad did not have'5iuqisdiction to entertain the subject O.P. under Sectior.r 42 2 of the Act, t9 )6, since previously the l't respondent h:rein had flled A.O,l'] l'l'r 402 of 2016 before the District Court' l'l'rammatn under Sectior I of the Act, 1996' The respondentNo'l h':retn frled his repty :r€ 1)o contending that Hyderabad is llrt I eat of arbitration, l;jr cc the arbitral proceedings were cottducti d rnd the arvard r,"'as, e r:;o passed in Hyderabad' The petiticn:r thus contended ttLt l- the courls locateC at the seat of arbit'at on had jurisdiction tr ceal rvith the award passed by the arbitral I'ribunal'

5. Thc ':l('1ft below placing reliance on the clecisior of the Suprerne (.l,r.rr1 in Indus Mobite Dislribution Pvt Ltd" Vs' Dttawintl lru rtvations Pvt Ltd.l , dismissed the said mc'lrc holding that an app ic r:ion r.rnder Section 34 of the Act' 1996 i: tc be llled u,here tlrr: ir,l.iiration took place and where the arbitrlt or place is fired. l be lr'!,ent revision is prefered aggrievecl br'the raid order' Contentior !lp 1'the Petitioner: I-earrrt'd Counsel appearing for the petitiotrct t cnttnds that' 6. Section ,1 I t l the Act, 1996 which starls with a nor - obstante clause rrr,rvi,l:s that once an application is filed b':l:'l a (jout1 t1017 SC(' or,lir,. i -1 ,1 12 ; t I I i I t i I I I i I I 3 seeking relief under Part I of the Act, 1996, sr-rch Courl alone shall have .juLisdiction to deal with all subsequent applications arising out of the arbitration agreemcnt including the arbitration proceeding; and since, the rcsponclc'nt No. I herein had Illed A.O.P No.402i20 I6 belorc the Principal [)istrict Judge at Khamrnam under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 seeking injunction restraining the petitioner herein frorn encashing the bank guarantec, therefore any subsequent applications woLrld Iie to [he vcl'] same Coun by vir-tue of'Section 42 of the Act. 1996 l. It is Iurther contended that. thc (lorlmcrcial ('our1 at llyderabad, cannol assumc. jurisdiction on the ground thal thc arbitral proceedings were held and the award was passed at llyderabad. when the tender condrtions speoifically vcst the (lourts at Kharnrnam with exclusive jurisdiction; and that the Courts in llyderabad would have jurisdiction by vir-tue ol thc award being passcd IN I lydcrabad, had the earlier application virle A.O.P No.402i20 l6 not bcen llled belblc thc [)istrict .ludse . Ki]arrr.nanr Contentions of thc Resoonden t No.l:

8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.l .*^- contends t"hat, though the tender conditions virle Enq. No. 4 Ll3ll(10 ll'rlrrtcd 21.02.20lr4 clothes the Courts at (hanrmam to have iur i,.,li, tion. since the petitioner hereirr had chos:n tlte place o1'arbirra or and conducted thc arbitral proceedirtgs n H,derabad. thc Coritt i r Il derabad had.julisdiction to dcal rvith tlre :hallengc under Scrcli.rr 3'.1 olthe Act, 1996

9. R,, :r r:iug rcliauce on the decision of the Supr:rne (lourt on Indus .lloh'lc's (supra) and Hinduslurt (.on structiott Conrprtr.t' t-'t l"s NHPC Ltd & Anr, it is conLenctd lhat the nlollerrL ,. I ca1 ot' arbitraLior-r is flxed. thc sanrc lniour)ts [o conl-erri,rg :r.:lr-rsive.jurisdiction on the Courls locaLed ut llie seat o[' albiLration r sLrpen'ise the arbitral proceedin-es inclurling any challcn_sc l(r I lc award passed. T'herefore, onlv thc (lornntercial Court rlt Il., c'rabad had .lurisdiction to ad.iudicate tlr: rrfblesaid ('.o P Consitlera lio rs bv this Court:

10. J'ltc o I \ qllestion lalling fbr considcration o1- Ll is C.ourL is u'hethcr b, rpcration of Section 42 of the Act l! 96. the .julisdicti,ln o .he Cornmercial Courl in I{yderabad, sLand; oustcd ll(ll ).1 \( ( i i 5 on account of Section 9 application filed belore the District Court' Khammam'i I l. Befbre proceeding with the lacts on hand' it is approprtate to consider the law rclating to jurisdiction of Cou(s trnder the Act' 1996

12. Scction 2( l)(cXi) of the Act, 1996 deflnes the term 'Cour1' as a Clourt having.iurisdicLion to decide the sLrb.iect rnatter of the ciispute. l'hat bcing said Section 20 recognizirlg pal't)' autonorn)'' ln arbitration, providcs that pafties wcre licc ro choosc the place of' arbitration. Thus, both thc Clourls having sublect mattcr of jurisdicrion and the Courts located at the seat have j urisd iction over the arbitral proceedings I i. I lorvcvcr, Scction 42 of thc Act, I 996 deflnes the jurisdiction of thc CoLul as under n -12: Jrrrisdiction - Notwithstanding anything conlaittcd clsewherc itr Sectio this ['art ol in atlJ otl]cr law for the titlc bcitlg in lbrct' uhct'c rritlt r':spcct Lo atl arbitlatron agtcelrenl arll'application undcr this l'art has bcen tllailc in a Cottn' tllat Court atonc shall have .jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings' and all sequent applications artsing out of thal agreerrlelt and the arbitral procecdtngs shall be nacle in tlrat Court and in no otlter Coutl' According to Section 42, the mollrent ol any applicatioir under Pafl ! ol'the Act. 1996 is rnade before a Court. thc said ('ourr alone has jurisdiction'i-rii' all subscquent procecdings. includirrg thc arbitral 6 proce 3dir ! s. fherefbre, Section 42 of the Act, 1996 ct utemplates Itll otlst€'1. ,' l' lLirisdictiorl' ll, .\ l: ,li Bench of thc IIon'blc Supreme (lotrt t in BGS 56-.S SOMA lt 's. NITPC Lld.t. referttnt extensir.ely rt, irs plcrious decisicrr-r, ir:lLrding the decision in Indus Mobile't r:alc' (supra). ?ls\\e r'3,.1 1ri qLrestion of rvhen the ouster ol jLrlis, iic iott under Sectiop il r 'thc Act, 1996 operates. The relevant o )\cr ations are as un(l!.1- ''61 Iq I rL.olrecl is thc llndrn-lr. in .\ntlix Clolporat orr Iti t trpra) tllu Secti., .1 .. lrc .\rbitratiorr ,\cr- 1996 u,orrld Lrc rcnderccl ir cli rctire ancl Lrscle:.:, li:r riorr -12 is mcanl to avoitl conflicts in juristlictiou of --ottt ts bt placing th, srrpc11isot"r jurisdiction orer all arbittal Pr rcc:dings in connr.ctirlr yith thc arbitration in one Court exclttsilclv. lti. i; uhr the Scctic,lt tc! rr,vitlt a ttotl-obstanlc clatlse. and tlten grres orl t( lltt\ '...\\hclc sitlt rcsl ,::r :'ln albitratiott agrcclllcllt an1'application unrlcr thrs I)art has becn ltacie ip lL r-.r r1 " It is obvious that thc applicrtion nradc Lrlil.:r tlti ltart to a Coprt 11 rst r,r 1 Court rr'hich hasjurisdiction to dccide srrch aolr lc rlion lhc strbscrlrr.0r r-l(:llrgs of this Court. that rvhere a seal s de;rrna eri irr an agrecrner :. ( ( ouds ctl' the seat alonc have.jtrrisdiction. rrouJd 11 (ltt re that all applicrli,,Ir rra:r Part Ibe rnrde orrl-v itt the Coutl tvltert tlte s,r r located. tnd tlt,,tr .. atonc thcn ltas.iLrrisdictiort orer the atbttral llfoaJr. nrs and all srrbs..clrc tlrrl *rtio|., arisin!r i,ttt ol'lhe a|bitral aglecnlert. \r :a,1. Seclron 1l is nil :f Uc I rrtel'lcctivc clt Ltsclcss Also u hcrc it is found orr th e lncts o[ erLt^ or tlle l ('ci 1r l)a rtie uti !.1 so-callctl "s a t" i s onlv a conycnient "venuc" then thcre nla i l)t seyeral 1l arl oI the cause of action arises thllt mav hare (lou rts rr ltr t urisd ic(ir,rr. r.gail, an a rrpliqt tion Un tler Section 9 of thc Ar b lra tion ,\ct. I996 nta' r, rrt,[crred beforc a coult in rrlrich palt oI thc c xr sc )f action arist.s i-!r.r_._ .u \rhcle I)arlics lta\c not aqrccd on lhc "\(a(",'I:rr.l itration. and befolt irrclr "seat" rnat havc been determined on th( Ircts of a Da rtic u Ia r' c u,c. bv the Arbitral 'I'ribunal Under Scction 2 0(2 ) of thc nsc tllnt citlter no "seat" is dcsi nate(l br a ' (20:0) 1S( l( l-i l '{ i t 7 .4rbitration Act, 1996. ln both thrsejij!ations, the earlicst aDplication having bccu rnadc 1o a Court iu which ar part of thc cause of actioo arises would thcn be the cxclusive Court Undcr Scction '{2 which rvould have control oYer the arbitral Drocccdings. For all thcs e reasons. the l w stated by the Bombay and Dclhi Hish Courts in this regard is incorrect and is overrulcd." I'hus, oncc a seat of arbitration is decided, the Courls at the place of seat o['arbitration alone shall have exclusivc julisdiction. 'fhe oustcr 01' jurisdiction providcd under Section 42 ol the Act, I 996 applics only in cases whcre an application undcr Part I of.Act, 1996 is tlled belore a Court having.iurisdiction where cause of action ariscs betbre the seat of arbitration is decided. II'r other words, lrom the moment a seat is designated under the arbitration agreernent, the Coufls located at the seat of arbitration becomes the cor-r11 having subiecI rnatter of .iLrlisdiction undcr Section 2( l)(e)(i) of the Act. 1996. l-5. Again, the I Ion'ble Suprerne Courl in BBR (lndia) Privole Limiletl vs. S.P. Singla Constructions Priv e Limiletta, rctying on [he decision in BG]S SGS SOMA's case (supra), held that Section 42 of thc Act, 1996 was enacted to avoid conflict o1' jurisdiction and that thc said (llar,rse would only apply wherc the scat ol' ' itoli)ls( c691 17 I l 8 arbitrirLi.rt s not ciesignated. f'he relevant obser\. rli,)us are as e licar ii. n 'Vhere 'tlt ,nc u ill ha1'c th ''-'ll. \\: lr \L-.rlrcad\ rcf'ertcd to the flrst t'ert scntenccs oi thc lt:rr ntentioned pirittrfill Lr J cxplained the rcasonittg in tlre context ol thc p er:rr r:asc. Ihc parirl : l llr: SCS $6nln (sLtpra) alstr cxplairs tfrc n rr ol,s*nl I ettic( as irrcorJrc at, I ir Sectior 4l to hold lhat it is e\idcnt that tlrc apl, rc Llion nradc rndcr' )art I ntust be Io a coLrrt trhich lras a .iurisdiction t, d rcidc sLrclt c sc.ltris dcsi natcd ir the lr rccnlerl t. lh( coufts of 'thc scirt'i lr Thus. all applicatir s Lr rder l)ar1-l u risd ic tion. uiJl lr.: ,lL . rr thc cour( ,'rhcre'1he scat' is Iocatcd as Ihu1 coirrt rr.rLrlc] alolc hare i rr -. ,ti,rl rrrcr the arbitration procecdinls rrrrl a I Ltbsc(lLrcnt pr..ecd t- tr;ilg out ol'the arbittation proceedings -l hc q rot ition also cla ri tiel!|1 j rr hcn either no 'seat' is desi natcd b an a rcclll( !!.lL or the so- callcrl 'r:,r _ is oulr a convclrient ven ue. thclr thcre mav be s lye "al cou rts uhcre ir lll !l rrr isrl ction. An a pplicB.!.iq! ! rel'erlcd llcfr;r I tlte corrr t in rr hiclL a_1r 1 a|tie,i had not agree(l 1,n h c 'scat of arbitratiou'. This is ossl ble in the a tserrcc oI an ' bc filcd agl rC nlft 'thc seat' on 9 rna bcfolc 'tlr,: eat' is dcterntinctl b iec rion 20(2 ) oI thc A,r'r. Iorrscquentlv, in such situations, the court ryhcrt tt q141liest a pnlica tlqll ! rs bccn tnatl he courl iu * hich a aIt ('r entirc ol thc worrld then be the crclusive coult Unrlo S ect ioD 42 c:rrrsc 0f ll,ll Irr arises lt. such a court lroul oI tlrc \ c( ,\ccordin ll o\'cr thc arbitratioll,I ocecdings.' of thc cause of action ariscs that tnn nrlcr Scction 9 oI the Act nta\ be o[ causc of aclion arises in the case *hcr Iication U ndcr Secti (hc arbitlal tribunal I lrr der d har c con tr r irin asanA h ltr c c e Theretbrc. ri. .ecl1 fiom abovc where the ag[cemcltl ]i::es a seat of arbitratic,t- C tl\ Courts located at such scat ol arL.., tri tion had exclusi\ c, t-rr's:Jiclion to deal t'ith all proccedings arisrr-il ()ut of-the arbitraLion l1l i,enrcnL. I[o\,r'e \]er, in cases where Lhe a-at(enrent docs not desiLl r,ltl it scat ol arbitl-ation arld an applicati()n ul(llr part I oI the Act. l()9( s lllccl be lbre fixing ol rhe scaL ol arbit .,rt on. Lherl such court ,ii: " thc earliest application was made, has ,n. sdiction 9 /" ,1 /., over all subsequent proceedings including challenge against the arbitral award.

16. In conclusion. the aloresaid decisions enunciatc the operation of the bar under Section 42 o1-thc Act, l99ti as under l'he definition of Court under Section 2( I)(e)(i) ol the Act,

1996. whcre thc arbitration agrccment fixes the seat of arbitrat.ior-r, ordinarily means only the Courts located at thc -seat o1'Arbitration. -fhus. the nromcnt a scat of arbitration is decided the sat.ne acts as an erclusive jurisdiction clause divesting all othcr' Cor.rrts of their jurisdictiotr. Thereafter. filing an application belore an1, othcr Court is ron .r.r/ in the cye ol Iarv llcnce rhc bar uncler Scctiort '12 ol thc Act. 1996 does not appll- in such situations. In cases whcre the seat of arbitration is yet to be determined ancl an application under Part I ot' thc Act, 1996 is madc to the Court having subject mattc)r of jurisdiction, such Court becomes thc C'ourt having jurisdiction to deal with all turrhcr procccdings including thc arbitral proccedin.us 'lhc otrstcr conternplated under Section 42 ol the Act, 1996 applies 10 ttrt'r'r: ,. barrirrg the jurisdiction ol'all otht.r cc,r rts including thc ( . rrrLs at the seat of arbitration.

11. in ,h tlicts at hand, the dispute resolutrorr C larrsc in the tender ccnl I ons r,/r/e Enq. No. El3l3OO427 datecl 1.1.(12.20 l;l is as undc't

17. Altllil l R.,\'l'lO\: Nonrrr l' rrl 1i'lttrtes sltorrld be scltled b\ ncgotiatiolts bct\ee I llre contLraltr arrd t tc c rr. rned ltartics. ln cas,: a-r r.lIrtc/dillcrcnce is not senlcd through negotil ti0n_s. tlc .csl)cctt!e nafli. . .r rr , c|]]c0\ hr Arhitr,rtr,,|] a I l,- \rb tlator (s) will be appoilted to resolvc the rlisprrre, lrr rieer thc 1,:.rti :s l'he Clhairnran & irI.D. of the S.C.Clo.Ltd.. is la, nr absolrrtc fo\! r fo appoinl a single Arbilrator or lnorc than onc,\r .itrttor or to r.rf,) trc disl)Ute k) tltc Institrrtional Arbrtration at lris discr:rrr n arlcl his (l:(:rorr is final and bindingrrn thc 1tar1ies. 1'he app,rrrrtc-l 1rt itr.ator(s),/ lr; i -r ional Arbrlration should pass a seasorred ar..ard tl: tte petttc: s rcrr .l lt.aI tltc costs ol'the .,\rhitratiorr equallr b I rLr , ,-) thc ,\rbitra(ors alt;rointcd tl tlrc Chairrnun ,t \,1 l) ol'the !. (, l-1d.. i: rrrrablc to colltinrre a: att Arbittaror iijt iln leasons r\h,rt Lc\er or it thc Clhairrrran & \l.l) ol the SC C() _(d. lor tlrc rril,,r r. I ) bc |ecordcd in rir.rting thinks llt firr appirinl|tr nl ll a nc\r .\rf lLo rn tltc place ol'eristilq Arbrtrator.. he js htrirtr.l lr .o rcr 1o do s, i .Llrh a ncrr Arbitraror is appoirrted, lle can ertltc- :or.:inrrc thc arb tr rtrotr procccdings lront the stage \\here thi. eariitr ,\rbitrator cl :ci trnrred his p|oceedings or altel.[a(i\,elt the rcrr :\t.ritrrtor nra! .l rr r 'c!cdtnr\ Je rtov,' ilfltc eireurnsllttces \\0fl.r.)l lllt I l ,rJ. l8 1-ic.jr-L irdictiou clause irr the tender conditions r,i r,a trnq. No El3l3O[).,], tlated 2.1.02,2014 is as u.der ' 19. .lL Rlil.lt .'l ION: l hc Courr at Khanrrnarn district in .he- srrr _. o Anclhra Pradcsl rr rl. al lrare.juriscliction to rleal rvith and dccrde arrr I--lii rratrer or I I L1 disputc rlhatsoevcr arising oul of this contract encashnrenI ol Ban [. Guararrtees." including disputes arising on l9 It is pertinent to note that the arbitration clause in the instant case does not fix any place cither as a venuc ol arbitration or as the scat of arbit.ation. I k;wever, the jurisdictio, clause vests thc courts at Khammaur to havc jurisdiction to deal with any legal matter or disputes arising out o1'the contract.

20. [n the lacts a[ hand, the responclent No. I herein filed A.O.p No.402 of 2016 belbrc thc principal District Judge, Khamrnam, on I I .07.2016. [-he conrcnLions in the claim perition therein reveal thaL though the respondcnt No I had scnt a noticc dated 05.07.2016 sccking appointmcnt ol an arbitrator.. 11() rcplv was issued to the said notice. and as such rhe respondent No. I herein had sought thc interirn relief under Section 9 of the Act, 1996. 'lhe Couft below at Khammanr on the first hcarinq in A,O.P. No.'102 of 2016, issued an interim injunction on the rer'1, sarne day yirle order dated Ill.07.2016 in I.A. No.855 of'20 i6. I-hcreafter. rhe petitioner herein yrde notice dated 20. 10.2016 appointc.ci a sole arbirrator. However. even in thc said noticr: no place is proposed as the seat of \ arbitration. Thcitfore, at the lime of filing the application under Seclion 9 of the Act, 1996, there was no designated seat ol l I i 12 arbi[raLiorr. l]rus, Lhe bar urrdcr Scction 42 ol' the .Act, I996, squarel."' i,.rp lies vesting the Courts at Khamniatx riith 'upervisory jurisdic: c,n (,!ir thc arbitral proceedings, and r.iivc;tinq the jurisdiciic,tr , I othcr courts includilg the Courts locaLt j I t tite scat of arbitlat ic,r 2). Pr-rr.li . it is to be notcd that the said ,4..O.1). uas partly allovr.ed un , . tcnding interirn iuiunction restraininq tl.c rcLitioner hetcin fi.o r : tcashing the bank guarantee to au e\tc'u. ol balancc anrounr t,[ ] 12,60.000/- afier ad.iustrrcnt till . rr arbirral procee din,:s ,\ ele corrllleted. 'l'hus. this Clourt is of il.e icri, that the respor,ler. No. I herein havir-rg obtained an i:trer nr pr.oLection lrom thi: I'rit c ipal District Courl at Khammam, till thc ct,nclusion of the ar-bitr', I procecdings is cstopped fi.orn repr.obiLt nc thar tl-re !crl sa1]r(' (iurt lacks supcn isorv jurisclictiorr orc thi ar.Lritral I'ribuna I

22. 'l'lie S r 1:r'eme Court in P.R. Deshpotrde Vs. lIut.t,ti tJalaram Hoibatli5. 'rr: -l as under ' ( 1998)65( ( )rl r 13 '5.-Relying on thosc decisions Agr.au,rl..l.. speaking lbr thc tw,o Judgc Bench rn R. N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir. ir4AN{,,S(./0078/t991 :AIRt993S(i152 (supra) h:rs observed thus: "l-aw dsc5 not pcrntit a person tu) holjr approbale and rcp robate. l his Drinci plc is bascd on thc d oc(rine o felection r hich Dostu I ates that no Da rtl can accept and rc ecI he sarne instrument arrc that'a De rsor cannof saY al onc time that a transaction is valid and ther.bv obtain somc advant a e. to which he could onlv be c[titled on the footins i[4r ir i s valid and then turn roun d and sa\ it i s void for the n urD ose ofseculing s othcr rd !, ntaqe "

8. I'he doctrinc of election is basetj o,r thc rule ofestoppcl _ the principle that onc caInol approbatc a[d rcprobate inhercs in it. I)octrine of estoppel bv clect ron is one of the specics of esropp:l ir pais (or cquitablc cstoppcl) which is a rulc ttt c(luit\, []\ Ilrat rUlc a per\r rj, nta_\ bc prcclutlecl hr his actions or corrduct or silcrrcc ultcn it is his dulr ro:1teak. liorn assertilg a right u,hich he otherrvisc would have had 1r.rtle, Blilek,.l.arr I)rclro art. jrh f.drr )..

13. 'l'hough the counse i [irr. . i.tc r.espondcnr No. I had placed reliancc on Lhc dccisir)u r.ctldci :d tt Ilintluslun ('onslruction,s (supra), the sarne doc:s r-rot jiupport his conrention as it was observed that the arbiiration aqrc{,1cnl frxed the seat ot arbitration as Delh i

24. J'herefore, tn thc light ol tlrt lbregoing cliscussion this CoLul is o1' the view thar. lhc Lrndcrl_r lrg (..O.[). flleci chall,:nsing the arbitral award datcd 16.04.1018 Lr rdcr.Sr,r.Lion.14 ol-rhc Act, 199(r. IS to be presented belorc the appropriate Courl having jurisdiction in Khammam.

25. z\ccordingly, thc present Civil Ilu,ision petition is allowed The impugned docket orcler dare.i ll.l2.?0lg in Memo. S.R.No. j I I I l . l I l 14 6041 or''.1(l ll in C.O.P. No. 84 of 2018 passed l)\, 1he Ctmmercial Clourt .lr,Ldpr cLrm - XXIV AdCitional Chiel'.tudg-.. CiLy Civil Court. :r I ,r de rabad is sct-asidc. Ihe r.espond,:rlt \ -). I hcrein is dilectcc[ ]: .-l-,rescnt the same befbrc the appr.opriat,: i.curr having .iurisd'.. .r, 'r , i,r Lharnmarrr.

26. Pcnd ng ntisccllancous applications if anr shall ,Land closed. No order.ts t() costs. SD/. I.. \,/IJAYA LAXMI ASSIST,,\NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ;E ]TION OFFICER To,

1. The Comme-()i rl Court -cum- XXIV Additional Chief Judge C \ C vii Court' at Hyderabarl.

2. TWO CC s to lfll P SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR SINGAFIENI :OLLIERIES co LTD) [Ot]T

3. One CC to S ft IUNIL B GANU Advocate' [OPUC] 4. Two CD Cocte; Pcs,.l/n'l H.- .------ ..'.1 q {ri- Si4 i€ //i ,:) () ,.: \ tl ruu ilE ('(' 7 a .)_ HIGH COURI DATED:28/0 5t',2t25 f I I 'l ORDER CRP.No.882 of 2:019 ALLOWING THE: otVIL REV|SIN pETtTtON 4 ."P(4 Yt- - -.4 ^1 3\" '