The recent judgment of the Suprcme Court in Serosof Solufions Put. Ltd v. Dexter Capital Aduisors Put

3. M/s. Shriram Finance Limited Branch Wanaparthy, authorized signatory A. Jagadaiah S/o. Bhoomaiah, aged. 42 yea6, Occ. Regional Manager, R/o. Mahabubnagar. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned arbitration award No. 50412020 daled 12-1O-2021 without any notice and oppo(unity to the petitioners and also declare the consequential action of the 3'd respondent in filing execution proceedings in E.P. No. 250t2O22 and E.P. No. 4712023 on the file of Principal District Judge, Wanaparthy for seeking enforcement of the impugned award, as illegal, unla\ivful, contrary to law and consequently declare the consequential above execution proceedings as filed by I the 3d respondent for enforcement of the impugned award are also illegal, unlawful and contrary to law IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 impugned award daled 12.10.2021 passed by the znd respondent in Arbitration Case No. 5O4\2O2O including stay of all consequential E.P. proceedings in E.P. No. 25O12022 and E.P. No. 4712023 in Arbitration Award No. 5O4|2O2O on the file of Principal District Judge, Wanaparthy, pending disposal of main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M. DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N . SRIKANTH GOUD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.33264 of 2023 Mr. D. Damodar Reddy, lcarned counsel for the petitioners ORDER: (Pcr Lton'blc Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) 1 The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging an Arbitral Award dated l2.l0.2o2l . Thc Writ Petition was flled on ot.t2.2023.

2. The prayer in thc Writ Pctition is for a declaration that the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 in E.P.Nos.25Ol2O22 and 47/2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Wzinaparthy, for enforcement of the impugned Award is illegal. Thc pctitioners have also sought a declaration that the cxccution proceedings filed by the respondent No.3 lor enforcemcnt of the Award is illegal and contrary to law. Thc pctitioncrs have not prayed for any stay of the execution proceedings filed b_v the respondent No.3. 2

3. We have heard leamcd counsel appcaring for the \ petitioners.

4. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not given notice or opportunity to conduct the arbitration proceedings and that the petitioners came to know of the Award only in 2022 from Lh,e execution proceedings.

5. We have perused the pleadings in thc Writ Petition. Paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof do not mention anv date on which the petitioners came to know of the impugned Arvard save and except a general statement that the pctitioncrs' knou'lcdge of the Award was only after hling of the execution pctitic,ns.

6. It is settled law that The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the 1996 ActJ is a complete code rvhcrc an aggrieved person can challenge the Award under scction .14 ol the 1996 Act. Section 3a(2)(a)(iii) provides a party may takc the ground of absence ol' proper notice of the appointmcnt of zLn Arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise rrrrable to prcsent / 6 3 his/her case. The petitioners have not been able to show any ground or plead any reason for not filing an application for setting aside of the Award under section 34.

7. It is further relevant that section 34(3) of the 1996 Act gives an Award-debtor three months and thirty days from the date of receiving the Award to apply for setting aside of the Award. Hence, the petitioners could very well have challenged I the Award within the timeframe provided under section 3a(3) by showing the date of receipt of thc impugned Award. The petitioners have not relied on any decision for challenging the Award by invoking the extraordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of th.e Constitution of lndia.

8. The recent judgment of the Suprcme Court in Serosof Solufions Put. Ltd. V. Dexter Capital Aduisors Put. [Jd.t reinforces the legal position with regard to maintainability of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging an arbitral Award and limits intcrlercncc onlv n,herc the Award is completely perverse on the lace of it. The Writ Pe tition does not ' 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2Z 4 \ take any of these grounds save and except that thc petitioners were not put to notice or knowledge of the arbitral Award. There is also no explanation as to why the Writ Petition was hled two years after the Award which is dated l2.LO.2O2l.

9. We accordingly find no merit in the Writ Petition. W.P.No.33264 of 2023, along with all connected applications, is accordingll, dismissed. Interim orders, if an-v, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. sD/. S .BHAVANI SWAMY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE CTION OFFICER To, l One CC to SRl. M. DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

3. One CC to SRl. N. SRI1GNTH GOUD, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies BIV LS (A- HIGH COURT DATED:1810812025 /. I J J c) ( t 1 0[i 2925 a ,,ATcH EO ORDER WP.No.33264 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (tr $ \s 15- @