M/s. Sarosh Shipping lndia Private Limited v. M/s. Vijai Electricals Limited

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A VENKATESH, Senior Cor nsel for M/S. PILLIX LAW FIRM representing SRI MC). I IAWAZ HYDER ALI Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI B VENKATESWARA RA: representing SRI MVDURGAPRASACI The Court made the following: ORDER )1 THE HON'BLE JUSTTCE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE (;ADI PRAVEEN KUMAR C.R.P. No.3509 of 2023 ORDER: Qter I{on ble.Ju.stiu GuLlt I'rutttn Kumur) C.R.P.No.3509 of 202i is liled being aggrieved by the docket order dated 04.10.2023 passed by tltc lcalned Judge, Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge lbr I rial and l)isposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad in C.O.S.No.56 ol l0 I8

2. I{eard Sri A.\/cnkatcsh, Icarncd Scrtior Counscl lor M/s.Pillix Law Firm representing Sri Md.Narvaz Hyder Ali, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Venkatesra'ara Rao, learned counseI fbr Sri M.V-Durga Prasad, learned counsel appcaring lbr the respondent at lcngth

3. The petitioner herein is def-endant in the suit, which is filed by the respondent/plaintifF lor recover) ol an arnount of Rs.7,77,92,000/- frorn the petitioner with interest and costs

4. Originally, the respondent herein flled O.S.No.355 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Subsequently, after ) establishment ol Commercial Cor-rrts. the said suit r,rs renumbered as C.O.S.No.56 of 20lti

5. 'l'he facts in the suit filed by thc responde nt/plain I 'l'in blit'l'ale ttrat the respondent/plaintiff Cornpanl IS cngaged in the activity of manufactut ing and exporting of r.arious tvpcs o1' clr. r r:al translirrmers During the course of business, the respondent has r.::ivecl an crpor-t orders lionr Kenya Power & Light ('ornpany (KPL(') i( nanLrfucture and delir cr l3 Nos. ol Transhrrrne rs and its acccssorics ,r var.ious delivery points at Kenya, and accordingly rnanufacrured the siir r Irr this rcgard. thc respondent engaged thc logistic scrvices of the p,.r tioncr hcrcin lor lifting of the translonnels fiom thcir rvork place at I{Lr I irnun to Munrbai Port, handle custolns clearance, ship to Mornbasa Port ( . tnvil)and dcli'"er' to KPLC sites fbr a contract value of approxirrratelr I.s.-i.(rll crorcs b) entering into an agreement. Subsequently, due to di:J utcs bet\\,ccn thc parties regarding payment of amount due, the responrl, r t fi le d thc abovc' sult.

6. The impugned docket order dated 04.10.2023 rciu I irs rrnder " P.ll/. I present. I'he learned utun.scl fitr tha fui rtant lilcd u mcmo s'tating that there is sto1,b.y the tlon'blc l{igl; ttrt rn ('Rl, w I I I 3 No.631/2019 dared 19.08.2019 '[he learned counsel for plaintifi submitted lhat the slur i.v nol ettendcd be.vtnd 6 ntonlhs und lha samc is tlol applicahlL' tntl .submitletl lh t coto-l can proceed.lisr cro:is-axominol i0n (ounsel ./br defandunt rcquested linc lbr tross-eraminuliotl' G Deepa. Advocate is uppoinled us advocult comntissioner lo recortl Ihe Lross-exatnin( i(tn and lo lilc rtlxn l ltv' l6' I1.2023. Fcc is Rs.500/-. "

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing lor thc pctitioner contended that the leamed Trial Court has passed the in-rpugncd docket ordcr w'ithout considering the Memo fited by the petitioner u''ith regard to stay granted by this Court in C.R.P.Nos.634 and 635 of 2019 datcd 19.08.2019, and that the leamed Trial Court passed the docket ordcr appointing Advocate- Cornmissioner on the very samc day, $'herein the rcspotlcient herein took time in the matter without leading evidence on nulnber of occasions.

8. Leamed Senior Counsel further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that in spite of service of notice and entering appearance in C.R.P.Nos.634 and 635 of 2019, the respondent herein did not choose to argue the case nor filed any oounter' 9 It is further contended by the petitioner that the respondent herein had represented before the leamed Trial Court that in view of the decision 4 of thc Flon'ble Suprcme Court in Asian Resurfacinl of Rond Agencl, Privale Limited and unother Vs. Cenlral Bureuu ol . nvestigation' lhe interim ordcrs not extcnded.

10. [-carned Scnior Counsel for thc petitioner Iurtlr, r contenclcd that without issuing noticc to the petitioner. the courl belou :: oceeded w,ith thc marking ol docunrcnts through P.$'.2, and despitc ite fact tlrat the petitioner herein has already challengcd the vatidity ol he docurncnts by rvay, ol'C.R.P.Nos.(r34 and 635 ol 2019 and obtainir i stal ordcrs. the learncd Trial Court proceeded to accel)t the chief al'tldr , it filed bv I'.W.2 and to rnark the docuurents. He thercfore contends tlr,rl Lhe dockct ordcr passcd bv the lealned 'I rial Court is liable to be set asidc

11. l.earned counsel for respondent contended that thr l)reseut Rcvision Petition is tiled only to stall the proceedings in C.O.S.Nt . t5 ol l0 lti.

12. We have heard the contentions extensively I 3. A perusal of the docket proceedings of the lca rred '['rial Court perlaining to C.O.S.No.56 of 2018 produced before tlris lourl rcvcals that on 25.02.2022, it was recorded as 'stay is pending. Cr I on 25.03.2022' (20 rll ) r6 sc(' 199 I I 5 On 25.03.2022 it was recorded as 'the counsel for the plaintiff has stated that there is no stay. A memo is filed. Trial will continue. Call on 18.04.2022' .lt is clear that it rvas brought to the notice olthe learned 'Irial Court about non-existence of stay. On 18.04.2022, the docket procceding recorded as 'No representation to any party. Both the parties shall be present in person or through their counsel on 13.06.2022'. By order dated

29.06.2022, the Ieamed Trial Court directed both parlies to be present on 2l .01 .2022 for pre-trial conference lor case management hearing. The docket proceedings dated 25.08.22 stated the order o1' flrst Case Management Hearing disclosing that both counsel were heard and issues were settled lor trial. Tentative schedule was given for filing alfidavits of evidence on behalf of plaintilf as 26.09.2022, for recording of cross- examination of plaintiff side witnesses as I t.10.2022, for filing of affldavit of defendant witnesses as 2l.10.2022 and for the cross-examination of witnesses by 03.11.2022, for written arguments by 14.t1.2022 and oral arguments on 25.11.2022. The aforesaid proceedings establish that the leamed Trial Court is proceeding with the trial, whereas the petitioner appears to be not cooperating with the proceedings. 6

14. By placing reliance on the above proceedings, l: Lrned counsel for respondent submits that the petitioneridefendant is not c ) )perating with the continuation of suit proceedings and dragging on the nrLt .cr on one pretext or the other.

15. A perusal ol the impugned docket order, it i; evident that the petitioner hcrein filed a rremo stating that there is :;tl grantcd by tl'ris Court in C.lt.P.No.634 ol 2019 dated 19.08.2019. Hcr ever. the leamed counsel lor the respondent contended that the stay is rx,t cxtendcd beyond six rnonths and therelbre had ceased to operate. Admitt: lly, no steps were taken by the petitioner for extension of interim order in tenns of the judgrnent in Asfun Resurfacing (supra). The impu 3 red docket order lurlher revcals that upon the request of learned cour rel fbr petitioner therein lor cross-examination, the learned Trial C,r Lrt appointcd alt Advocate Commissioner.

16. After a lapse of six months, the Respondents I :rein represented before the leamed Trial Court that the interim stay harl not extended and stood vacated by operation of law, relying upon th,) judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Res urfociag (supra'. Acting upon this 1 I i I representation, the trial court proceeded to accept evidence and continue the matter.

17. At this juncture, the trial court was acting in accordance with the interpretation of the law then prevailing under Asian Resurfacing case' wherein it was obser-ved that interim orders ought not to remain in force indefinitely and may stand vacated if the proceedings are not concluded within a reasonable time. Thus, the leamed Trial courl's action, pursuant to COS No. 56/2018 dated 04.11.2023, though procedurally irregular' was based on a bona fide reading of the existing precedent of 2018'

18. However, this position of law has since been categorically overruled by the Hon'bte Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. Stale of Uttar Pradesh,2 in 2024 wherein it has been held that : ''56. In other words, applying the abot'e analogy or principle lhe stav" order grantetl in any proceedings tt'ould no! uuto'naticalll' stand vacated on the expiry of a porticular period unlil and unless an application to that ffict has been filed by the other side ctnd is deciderl foltowing the principles of natural justice hy a speaking order- " lg. The above judgment has settled the legal position by holding that an interimstayordergrantedbyaHighCourtdoesnotautomaticallyexpire ' lzozq e scc zst 8 after a set period il the case has not been concluded. i -rstead, the Court must provide a speaking order if it intends to vacate the tay. This ensures that the protection glanted by the stay order is not arbitr : :ily extinguished, prcventing a miscan iage of justice. Therefbre, no r,1 ry granted by corrrpetent court shall lapse by efflux ol time unless vac ted by a judicial act w ith reasons

20. Admittedl]-, thc trial in the suit is not yet closed. )n account of the parlies approaching the higher lorurn by filing Interlocrr rry z\pplications, the suit proceedings are stalled 2l . It is also relevant that the Suit rvas filed by the r e ;ltondent/plaintifT in 2012. The Suit u,as renumbered in 2018. The imprLl ned dooket order was passed on 04.10.2023. The petitioner/defendar filed the Civil Revision Petition in 2023 and obtained an order of stal r :rn a Co-ordinale Bench of this Courl on 28.11.2023. The stay )btained by the petitioner/defendant is hence continuing on and from I l l1.2023 i.e., lor nearly trvo years. Hence, we see no reason for the i ry of the Suit to continue when thc petitioner/defendant can contest the Sr t on merits.

22. In view of the above circumstances, this Courl inds no merit to intert'ere rvith the docket order dated 04.10.2023 passrl by the learned \ \ , () Trial Court. The learned Trial Court appears to have proceeded in good laith on the basis ofthc law as it stood then.

13. in view olthc samc, C.R.P.No.3509 ol2O23 is disrnissed

24. However, it is open for the petitioner/defendant to contest the suit on rncrit. Since the suit is originally instituted in the year 2012, the leamed 'frial Court shall endeavor to dispose of the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible after alfording rcasonablc opportunity to thc parties to put lblth their respective contentions.

25. Interim orders granted, if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs To, SD/- A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The Judge, Principal special court in the cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposaiof Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad, Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRI MD NAWAZ HYDER ALl, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI M V DURGA PRASAD, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies l ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:31 110t2025 ORDER CRP.No.3509 of 2023 /t- ,1 r\ t: [, : r-,;[, 2925 .,a i DISMISSED THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS b & 1\