The High Court · 2025

Petition under S :ction 151 of CPC praying that in the circurnslances stated in the affidavit filed ir ; upport of the petition, the High Court ma'y be pleased to expedite the hearinSr oi :he present Civil Revision Petition and fix:ln ,:arly date for hearing. crvtLREVISIO NPE N NO: 2716 oF2 24 $ilqiffi"r,i:*ii,'4i4+$? j#i{rTH'f .}::;,i';#j#$:iJ?:f Between: M/s Limited, (Formerty Nag ^NCC Assrstant General tvtinager llegifi nyoerabad_B 1. :'#ii "3,i,i:H:il:,r'& h'i;3; Tfi l.,iJrJil AND Nalional Institute of Techno rerangana), rep. by its ,,*l?3I ...Petitioner/D. Hr (Nlr)' warangal, Andhra Pradesh-500 004, (Now IA NO:1OF 2024 ...RespondenUJ.Dr **fla{*$ifi xffj-***uf;+r.,l;. ,T: fllon:1i5:i??::,;:#.aoy r*ni.r,ej,. "fii.,i, o, the petitioner arong with tte p.tiiioner"il,n]r;'"^'ns dated 08-07-202a givenby th".trrrirgil oil"iY"}", IA NO: 20F 2024 Petition under Section .l51.CpC praying that in th-e circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in suooort or tne pliiri,n,'ili., rlign Court may be pteased to ;:H:f the hearins of ihe present cirii ii"ri"i"" ouY,,,on and fix an earry date for counsel for the petitioners in a, cRps : SRr AVTNASH DESAT representino sRr MoHAMMeo onaen.Fen6dii Gounsel for the Respondents in alt CRps : SRIT MAHENDER RAO (SC FOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER NtT, T.S WARANGAL) I THE HON,3LE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHAFI,YA AND THE IIOI{,BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RA.D C.R.I'.Nos.2714 2715 and.2716 of 2O24. Mr. Avinash Derr Farooq, learr:ed c:t: learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. MotL:rnII3d (Jmer .eL lor Lhe petitioner Sri T. Mahend rr respondent. I ro, the learned Standing Counsel for NIT, appc!rrn.j [or the COMMON ORITER: (Per Hon'ble. Justice Moushumi BhattarharJa)

1. The th -e . Civil Revision Petitions arise our- of a common order dated t)i t)8.2O24 passed by the Special Jud61c fr,r Trial and Dispos:ri ,,f' Commercial Disputes, Rangareddy Dis:.rict at L.B. Nagar, i r three Execu[ion Applications - E.r\.Nc,.i' cf 2024 in C.tr.P.No. 16 :tf 2023, E.A.No.8 ot 2024 in C.E.P.No. I7 r 12023 and E.A.No.') 't 2024 in C.E.P.No. la ot 2023 respecLi\'clv

2. The Jrt:r lione r is the plain tiff/ decree - holde r and the respondert ;s t rr: defendant/judgment-debtor

3. The threr .E.As were filed by the petitioner under Rule 232 of the Civil ?r LLes of Practice for withdrawing an ..trno.rnt of Rs.21,91,53 I '7 l,r deposited by the respondent/ Jucigment Debtor subjr:r:t o the petitioner furnishing acce6rtable sr:curity in the Trial Ool r i. ) Yi

4. The brief facts leading to the hling of the present CRps are as follows:

5. The petitioner filed three Commercial'Original Suits - COS Nos.25, 26 and 27 of 2021 - against the respondent for payment for work done by the petitioner. The Suits were decreed by the Commercial Court in favour of the petitioner on 01.06.2023. The Commercial Court directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,58,61,67il-, Rs.1,18,51,315/- and Rs.13,60,97,3441 along with interest @ 12% per annum pendente lite and @ 60/o per annum post-judgments till the date of realization in COS Nos.25, 26 and 27 of 2O2l respectively.

6. The petitioner hled three Execution Petitions C.E.P.No. l7 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.25 of 2O2l , C.E.P.No. 18 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.26 of 2O2I and CEP No. 16 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.27 of 2027 on 2O.O9.2O23 for enforcement of the judgments passed in the three Suits.

7. The respondent filed First Appeals (Commercial Court Appeals)-on 30.1O.2O23 i.e., COMCA Nos.47, 48 and 49 of 2023, challenging the judgments and decrees in C.O.S.Nos.25, 26 and 27 of2O2l. 3

8. By ordr:r r; dated 22.11.2023, the High Courr grzrnled stay of executicr :,1 the judgments and decrees sub-re:t to the condition o' :r nositing of 50% of the decretal amounts

9. Th<: :<'s >ondent filed a Memo dated 08.O1.2024 in the Commercia Ct 'urt in CEP Nos.16, 17 and 18 of 2')'.a3 stating that it heLs c r: rosited the total amount as directed b1 tlLe High Court, i.r'., 5((,6 of the decrctal amount of Rs.2l,9 1,5.\,1741 which inclr- c.e J an amount of Rs.16,22,46,4741 in C EI' No.16 of 2023 l?s ,1,27,85,592 in CtrP No.17 ,rf ))2.) and Rs. 1,41,21 ,l 0l ;i in CEP No. 78 of 2023

10. The tligl r Court by its order dated 22.02.'.2024 pe:mitted the pe[itrorrr:r to withdraw the amounts depositerl ty the petitioner s r b,i . ct to furnishing of sccurity to the satisla,:tion of the Commer-<r:.r I Court 1 1. The pr:tr:ioner filed tr.A.No.7 of 2024 in CtrP N r. I6 of 2023,tr.A.|[ot ol 2024 inCEPNo.lTof 2023and DA.'\o.9of 2024 in CE I N rr.18 of 2023 under Rule 232 ol thre Civil Flules of Practice to ssr rc cheques for the amounts and furnislr s ecurity in the form rrf and admeasuring Acs.3.29 guntrrs an,l rrc. 1.06 guntas tota.lnl Acs.4.35 guntas in Survey No. 160 c,f ,Je'nwada Village, Shanhi rpally Mandal at Ranga Reddy Districr, va ued at ,r- €: 4 l Rs.39 Crores. The petitioner hled additional affidavits on 04.06.2024 offering some sectrrities and also f-rled Unconditional Undertakings dated 08.07.2 O24 given by the Managing Director of the petitroner to return the amount in the event the respondent's COMCAs being allowed. The Valuation Report . reflecting the value of the land at Rs.39 Crores is also part of the Records. The property offered by the petitioner as securilr was purchased by M/ s. Vaidehi Avenues Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the petitioner uide Registered Sale Deed dated 10.06.2011 . M/s. Vaidehi Avenues Limited was amalgamated with the petitioner pursuant to a Scheme of Amalgamation approved by the NCLT by an order dated

26.O8.2021.

12. The Commercial Court by the impugned Common Order dated 05.08.2024 disposed of E.A.Nos.7, 8 and 9 of 2024 filed by the petitioner by holding that the security offered by the petitioner in the form of land can be accepted for an amount of Rs.5,13,00,O0O/ - as opposed to Rs.21.91 Crores being 5O% of the decretal amount. The present CRps arise out of the said impugned common order dated OS.Oa.2O24.

13. Iearned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Commercial Court failed to notice that the ) amount menl i,lr (ld in the Annual Statement of the p('tit ioner reflecls the c()rjt ,-,f the property at the time of purcha s': rvhich was more tllztn i 2 years ago, as opposed to the pr'lsent valuation of lh( property. Counsel submits that there have been multi Ieu,:l ,Levelopmenls on the land and thrr larrd o ft:rcd is now a protil)e .us part of the city, with auctions of iLdjrlcent lands fetchLnll zl Ilounts of up to Rs. 100 Crores per acr,- in some cases. Coun ;t:l s;ubmits that the cost of acquisition ol- lhe Iand in 201 1, as pe the Indian Accounting Standards, doer; not reflect the cttlr( rtL value of the land. Counsel also poir 'ts to hndings ir -he rmpugned order which are contrarJ' t' ) the documents orl rccord and that the Comme rci'rl rlourt misconstrucc l.I :i statements in lhe Annual I?cport r(lg' rding the fair valuc c:l .l-rc land held in the name of the pc titrc'ner

14. Learnel r,runsel appearing for the responrlent raises a preliminary, lrc,ir of the CRPs not being maintainable irL vrew of section 8 of 'f re Commercial Courts Act, 2015, wl-rich prohibits fiting of a CRP a:lainst an interim order passed by a Cor--rrrrercial Court. Coltr st'l ,rlso addresses on the merits o[ the C Iil)s n thc context of the i :tiLioner's Valuation Report, which c )rltrtdicls the ofhcial nrirr (et values and the findings of the Corurercial Cour[, which s]t , te that the land remains an agricultu-al land. \ counsel submits that the petitioner shourd have offered Bank Guarantees equivalent to the amount claimed by the petitioner i.e., Rs.21.91 Crores, instead of offering land, the valuation of which is significantly lower than the claimed amount.

15. The issue of maintainability of the present Civil Revision Petitions (CRps) should be answered first.

16. The bar contained in secLion g of The Commercial Courts Act, 20 1 5 ('the 2015 Act,) pertain s to enterraining Civil Revision Petitions from an interlocutory order of a Commercial Court including any order on the issue of jurisdiction of. the Commercial Court. Section B of the 2015 Act mandates that a challenge to an interlocutory order passed by a Commercial Court shall be filed in accordance with the shtutory framework of section 13 of the 2O15 Act. In other words, the correct route would be to file an appeal under section 13(1) or (1A) of the Act.

17. The Supreme Court in Shatini Shgam Shettg Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patilr delirreated the principles on the exercise of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and limited the scope of such power in matters of interference in orders of Courts inferior to the High Courts. The ' (201o) 8 scc 329 7 power to interf ,re was circumscribed within the boundaries of patent pervcrii r', gross or manifest lailure of justice or violation o[ the princip (] of nalural justice. ln other words, th,: Su pre me Court helcl .h ,, I the power of superintendenr:e sl ol,ld be sparingll c;rclrsed only in fit cases i.e., to k.( p slrict adminis[ra ri,,r: :cntrol of the Courts within the territorv of the High Courr.

18. A Divir;icr Rench of this High Court in M.l,.Ramana Rao 7s. ,1V. Subr;slr- c ,r'rsidered the issue of maintainab,ility ol rr CRp againsl [hc crrl ir.rgo contained in the 2015 Act anci oiiutcd the stricture con,e Lir -rd therein by drawing a distinction betri.ecn the pou.er ol' re ,r: :;r :,n under section I 15 of The Codt, of Civil Procedure, I.l(,3 ('CPC) and under Article 22j o Constitution c I- [r-rdia. The High Court held that the polrer of judicial rcvreu under Article 227 cannot be taken ..w{ry by section 8 ol lLr .20 15 Act but cautioned against rnisusc of the power in un 1.:s lrr.ing cases. A Division Bench of the High Court of Anlht a Pradesh expressed the same opin.or i.e ., section 8 ol th, 2O 15 Act is confined to a CRI) lllccl r rndcr section I 1:r ol t re CPC and does not operale as a ba:- tr; the , t\4ANU/?t/O1 ;3 '. 0 ,) h 8 -'''.J jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

19. In BIue Cube Germanu Assets Gmbh And Co. KG Vs. Viuimed Labs Limiteds, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh clarihed that although the nomenclature given by the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is 'Civil Revision Pefition' it is not equivalent to a Revision Petition under section 1 15 of the CPC. [t was further clarified that the power of judicial superintendence vested in a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be equated to ordinary revisional jurisdiction. The Court also clarihed that the petitions hled under Article 227 in several High Courts are not referred to as'Civil Revisions'but as Writ Petitions (Civil)'. ln other words, the Division Bench held that the nomenclature of 'Civil Revision Petition' to petitions filed under ArLicle 227 would not fali within the statutory bar in section 8 of the 20 15 Act.

20. The discussion becomes somewhat academic in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Col. Anil Kak (Retd.) Vs 3 20|9(2)ALD 671 9 Municipal (\tr,toration, Indoreq where it was heLd thrrt a High Court is irutir( iized [o convert a petition liled under se ct:.on 115 of the CPC :o r proceeding under ArLicle 227 of the Clons-,itution on its orn'r.r (rvc r \\iithout a motion in that behalf by tbe pe titioner before it 2l . Thc:rc 1,rr Lhe argument of the respondent that th e CRPS are not rnarr I. r nable in view of the bar in sectiot-l 8 :l the 20 15 Act cannot Le rLccepted. We accordingly hold that the CI{Ps are maintainablt'

22. Thr' -r's:ondent has relied on State of Telar:,gc'no Vs. M/ s.Siddar:lto l.-.onstruLcttons Priuate Limiteds. Howevcr, in that case, thc (l,lr r-! noted that the petitioners dirl not h ave an answer as ( \,.nY they have not hled any appeal under section 13( 1) or i ,\ r he 20 15 Act and instead chose to lile aL CRP against lhe rn rugned order. Therefore, the Court als< folrnd that the bar ,:;ntained in section 8 of the 2015 Act r,r,ou ld fully apply to tht' la ts before it and the petitioner cannot t:Lkt' refuge under Artjcl,' -27 of the Constitution of India lbr rr-rrrir taining the CRP,

23. We n,r. )ropose to deal with the three CRPs on r ne rits 4 (2005) i2 S-.C(l s 2024 16l ALr t r )B) (TS) t \

24. The Commercial Court in the impugned order was of the view that the security offered by the petitioner could only be accepted for a sum of Rs.5,13,00,OOO/_. In coming to this decision, the Commercial Cour[ relied on the figures at paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 0f the Annuar Report of the petitioner Company lor the F.y. 2022-2023. The petitioner was hence given liberty to withdraw only an amount ol Rs.4,27,g5 ,592/_ or Rs. 1,41,21,108/- by furnishing the movable properties offered by the petitioner as security as opposed to the petitioner,s prayer for withdrawing Rs.21,91,53,12 4 / _.

25. We have head learned Senior Counsel appearing for the pelitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the issue of whether the securit5r/ land offered by the petitioner was sufficient for withdrawing Rs.2 1,91,53,174 / _. 26 The petitioner has liled its Annual Report for the F.y. 2022-2023 before this Court aiong with a Memo dated 30.o8.2024

27. To briefly recall the facts, the petitioner as the decree- holder, was permitted by the High Court by the order dated 22.O2.2O24 to withdraw the 50% of the decretal amount i.e., the sum of Rs.21,91,53,124/- which had been deposited by the ,- .1 I1 respondent/ juc ltment-debtor on furnishing of securitv to the satisfactio a c I r hc Commercial Court. The petitioner , rffered Acs.4-35 qL r rr :i of iand in Sy.No.160 of Janu.acla Village, _ ShankerpalD M rndal claiming a valuation of Rs.39,OO,ilo OO0/- for the offc,rec I r:rcl along vvith an unconditional undertakLng by the Managinq I rector of the petitioner Company to re turn the amount in tL e e i ent respondent succeed in the Appeals. 2a. The issu< rs whether the Commercial Court :rr.ed in holding tha - :-Le security oflered by the petitiorrer was unsatisfactorl, a rd r"vas not equivalent to Rs.21,91,53,1741-.

29. Upon con dering thc relevanI pages of [he Annua] Frteport of the petitron()r (.lompany for thc F.y. 2022 2023 it is clea.- that the Commercial l-ourt fell into error on several counts.

30. First, t t.-' r mount mentioned in lhe.Annual Repot t lrhich was relied r-11;o by the Commercial Cour[ is the, co st of purchase oL t hc, ;'rroperty as purchased more than 72 y€ arr; ago in 2011 and rrot the valuation of the property as on 2024, This would be c.lear irom the Annual Report itself. Furttrcr, the anount ment.(,n ,d in the Annual Report is for the entirc e:<tent of Acs.55-00 llr LrErs of land as opposed to Acs.4-3.5 gtintas i E. t2 r.l ..1 which was the extent of land offered by the petitioner AS security for withdrawing the amount

31. The fact that value of the property has increased since the date of purchase would also be evident from Government auctions in the vicinity which have letched as much as Rs. 100 Crores per acre in some cases. Government land on which such auctions have been held is situated within a radius of about 8-9 Kms from the land which was offered by the petitioner as security.

32. Moreover, it appears from paragraph 2.10 of the Annual Report that the value of Rs.5.13 Crores refers to the cost of acquisition of land including sale consideration, cost of stamp duty and registration charges of the property which were incurred by the petitioner at the time of purchase of the property as opposed to the market vahie of the property in 2024 when Acs.4-35 guntas of land was offered by the petitioner as security. The Commercial Court also failed to consider the Chartered Accountant's Certificate and particulars of the same transactions frled by the petitioner which reflect that the amount mentioned in the Annual Report is sale consideration and registration charges for purchase of land of Acs.55-0O -.,gr-1ntas across 20 registered Sale Deeds. l3

33. Senicr ( ,t,unsel appearing for the petitioner Conrp:rny has placed a lrst r I accredited Registered Valuers of the Instlvency and Bankr-rp;r r.v Board of India (,lBBI,) and has irLvi ed the Court to apporlt any Registered Valuer from IBRI pzrrLel for the purpose rrl r a ting l-he land oflercd by the petitioner at the petitioner's I )s t. The objections raised by the resltonrle nt on the correct vtrhtirt On of the property offered by the oe.itioner become irre i:r.'nt in the express bonn ,fides shorv;r i)J/ the pelitioner COrn rany u,ith respect to such issue.

34. The f:tirr r:ss of the stand is sufficient tc, denLol sh all opposition tl) r rc valuation done on \7.O3.2024 for Acs O4_35 guntas of land n Sy.No.l60 of Janu,ada Village Shank,:rpalli Mandal, Rang:r ileddy District. The very fact that the p,s1 1i6n.. is willing t() lndertake a fresh valuation of thr. se curity notwithstanci -16 the valuation already been done on 17 .O3.2024 is sufhcien t to lt the balance in favour of the petitione r and against the tr:;pondent. The respondent cannot have any plausible obi(.c ron to a fresh valuation being Registered Vtu:r from Insolvency and Bankruptcy India Panel donc by a Eioa rd of t

35. [n any r:rc rr, the petitioner as the decree_holcler is en:itled to enjoy the ir,r I s of the decree which presently is or: ly 5O%o t x. l4 thereof. Petitioners in similar situations are permitted to withdraw amounts even without furnishing security in fit cases.

36. We are accordingly of the view thatzill three CRPs should be allowed and the impugned Common Order dated O5.Oa.2O24 set aside by appointing one of the enlisted Registered Valuers under the category "Land and Building" for carrying out a fresh valuation of the tand offered by the petitioner as security for withdrar,r,ing Rs.21,91,53,174/- deposited by the respondent/ Judgment-dcbtor.

37. We accordingly appoint Mr.Pothuganti Venkatram Rajesh, Registered Valuer, to value the land offered by the petitioner as security, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this order. The Registered Valuer shall be permitted to take the assistance of the olfice bearers of the petitioner Company and the respondent and alt oLher necessary sdpport, if required. Costs of the valuation including the Registered Valuer's fees shall be borne by the petitioner.

38. The scale of fees lo be paid to the Registered Valuer shall be in accordance with the usual rates or the IBBI accepted rates, if any, or Rs.2,0O,000/- whichever is higher. The Registered Valuer shall also be provided with all required l5 assistance. 'l:rr Registered Valuer's Report shall be lll:d before the Trial (lourt lbr a fresh considcration of the securi y ,)ffered by the petr ti,r:r c r ,/decree holder.

39. It is rLzL,l , clear that the fresh valuation is being directed not by rezrs,c,n of any suspicion with regard r-o th,r iigures furnished b.z t ir: petitioner but on accoun[ of r_he c'rn licting interpretat io n s; ,-rf the petitioner's Annual Report for the F.Y. 2022-2023. iV, deem it fit to order a fresh valuarr,)rL as ir is necessary thar the security furnished should be t I the satisfactiorl ol t re Commercial Court.

40. C.R.P. \cs '-2714, 27 15 and 2776 of 2024 are ac<:ordingly allowed in te:rn r of the above.

47. Miscellan 'rus applications pcnding, il an1 , sh:.11 stand closed. Interirn lrrdcrs, if any, shalJ stand vacatcd. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR t To, $eclott oFFrcER 1. The Special J'rc!,e for Trial and Disposal of Commer,lia Disputes, //TRUE COPY// Rangareddy Drstr ct, at L.B. Nagar

2. One CC to SRI lI(,HAMMED OMER FAROOQ, Advocate [OPL,C] 3. One CC to SRI l. IIAHENDER RAO (SC FOR NITT S WARANGIT'L) IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies; ADK/PSL Yr L HIGH COURT DATED:2910411'.025 COMMON ORt)ER CRP.Nos.2714 2715 and 2716 ot 2024 t{ .i 2t !A/ zoz5 t .98. ,' n , \ :!'r eO z ot' ALLOWING AL L THE GRPs .off G X,'$.