✦ High Court of India · 22 Sep 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 22 Sep 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVONDAY. THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 28770 OF 2025 Between: Mandala Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Sri M. Gangadhar Reddy, R/o. H. No. 4-1'1lG/1 , Santamangaluru, Prakasham District - 523 3O2 Andhra Pradesh Occ.Driver,aged 42years. ....,PETITIONER AND 1 . The State of Telangana, represented By the Prl Secretary Law and Legislation, Dr B R Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd , Having its Registered Office at. 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400 05-1 lnter alia having its Branch Office at. 6-3-1107 86 1108, 3rd Floor, BRR Complex, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082 Represented by its Legal l\Ianager. B. Shiva kanth, S/o. B. Krishna Goud.

3. Srr Ch Eswara Prasada Rao, (Retired Senior Civil Judge), S/o. Not known to the petitioner, Arbitrator constituted by M/s. Dharayathi Arbitration IVediation Centre (DAI\/C lnstitution), Rahul Towers, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, Telangana. lndia. 4 M/s. Dharayathi Arbitration Mediation Centre, (DAMC lnstitution), Rahul Towers. Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, Telangana, lndia..

5. The Station House Officer, Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur District, Andhra' Pradesh (not necessary party). .....RESPONDENTS Petitron Under Article 226 of th'e Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of a Writ of nature of Mandamus calling for all the records pertaining to and related to Arbitration Case No CH.E.P. No. 1358 of 2025, whereat an order was passed by the arbitral 'I 4 I 4 q a 1 n i - tribunal presided by respondent no.3 constituted by the respondent no.4 allegedly u/s 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 travelling beyond the Principles of Natural Justice by virtually making an ex-parte order in terms of section 9 and 17 sub clause - ll of the Act, where the 3rd respondent has not even caused any notice as mandated under the Act, but noting to have caused notice further virtually giving away the vehicle l\ilake. Maruti Suzuki lndia Ltd., lrlodel. Baleno Altura wrth Registration No. AP 39 SK 1844 without there being any jurisdiction. airthority, rightfulness under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, otherwrse contrary to the established legal procedure making an order dated 02-08-2025 in Arbitration Case No CH.E.P. No. 1358 of 2025 is being illegal, arbrtrary Un Constitutional, being violative of Articles '14, 'lg and 300A, against the Lelter and spirit of Judgments rendered by Honourable Supreme Court and Catena of Judgments rendered by this Honourable Court apart from being violative of principles of natural Justice and Fair play and consequently to quash the order dated 02-08-2025 in Arbitration Case No. CH.E.P. No. 1358 of 2025 passed by the 3rd respondent. l.A.NO:1 OF 202s 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 suspend the operation of the ex-parte order dated; 02-08-2025 in Arbitration Case No. CH.E.P. No. 1358 of 2025 on the file of respondent no 3 Presiding over Respondent NO 4 by directing respondent no 2 to deliver custody of hypothecated asset vehicle being Maruti Suzuki lndia Ltd., Model. Baleno Altura with Registration No. AP 39 SK 1844 to the petitioner after collecting the due installment sum of Rs 99 558/- pending the disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI IMMANENI RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI D.SURENDER KUMAR, LEARNED ASSISTANT GP FOFI LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 :- Counsel for the Respondent No.s : G.P FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER I I \ \ THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2877O OF 2025 lr4r. Ram;r Rao lmmaneni, learned t:ounsel appearing for the petrtioner N,[r. D. SLrrender Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for [,aw anrl Lcgislarivc Affairs appearing for the respondent No. l ORDER:1eer Ilon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattachar1,a)

1. The writ petition has been filed for quashing an order datcd 02.08.2O25 passed by thc learned Arbitrator in an application (I.A.No. I of 2025 in Arbitration Case CH.D.P.No. 1358 of 2025) under section 17 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Althoutgh lcarncd counscl appearing for the petitioner sutrmits that the impugned order contains various infirmities inr:luding thc manner in which the Arbitrator was appointed, we are of the lirm view that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of t]ne Constitution of lndia is not maintainable against an order passcd b-"- :ur Arbitrator under section 17 of the i 996 Act.

3. The 1996 Act itself provides a range of remedies to a party aggrievcd by an order passed by an Arbitrator under Section 17 of the said Act. There is no basis for the petitioner to invoke the ) extraordinan, jurisdiction of the High Court unricr Article 226 of thc Constitution dcspite the existence o[ an efficirr:rous statlrtory rcmedy

4. W.P.No.28770 of 2025, along w.ith :rll connect€d applicatiorls, is accordingly dismissed. The petit ioner shall have the liberty to approach thc appropriate forum lirr relief, if so desired. 'lhelc shall be no ordcr as L() cosls. SDi BHAVANI SWAMY IS ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUf]

1. Two CCs to GP FOR LAW AND LEGTSLATTVE AFFA 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State 3. One CC to SRI IMIvIANENI RAMA RAO, Advocate [O 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] PUCI J TION OFFICER , High Court for the of Telangana at M.- To SA BS 4 {[ I * ,i , * , *, 4 4 + 0 HIGH COURT DATED:22lOgl2025 il\ (- a {' I Q ORDER ,a l rrs S14 T€ ,J !10[Ip5 j * * i { WP.No.28770 of 2025 F411t.rF t DISMISSING THE W.P wrrHour cosrs. 1 "tA'

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments