Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 98 (AP)

G. Nagaraju v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

2019-06-24

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

body2019
JUDGMENT : M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J. 1. This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is filed by the petitioners, seeking verbatim the following relief: "....to call for the record relating to order dated 23.4.2019 passed in EP No. 71/2018 on the file of Hon'ble IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi and examine the legality, proprietary and correctness of the same and consequently set aside the same by allowing the revision in the interest of justice and to pass necessary order or orders....." 2. We have heard the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners/judgment debtors 3 and 4 ('JDrs 3 & 4', for brevity); and, of learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. We have perused the material record. 3. From the pleadings and submissions made, the following facts are discernable: 'After award has been passed, assailing the said award, a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act') is filed by the JDRs 3 and 4 and two others before the District Court alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing of the said petition. The contention of the JDrs 3 and 4 is that the award has been obtained by playing fraud. Be that as it may. When the DHr initiated execution proceedings vide EP No. 71 of 2018 in the said arbitration proceedings [ARC No. 540 of 2014], wherein the subject award has been passed, the Court below, by the order, which is impugned in this civil revision petition, over-ruled the objections of JDrs. 3 and 4 and ordered attachment of monthly salaries of the JDrs. 3 and 4, in accordance with the provisions of Section 60 of the Code, for realization of the award amount, which is subject-matter of the execution proceedings.' 4. Learned Counsel for the JDrs 3 and 4 submits that in view of pendency of the application for condonation of delay, the District Court is not disposing of the OP filed assailing the award and that therefore, the present civil revision petition is filed. He would, inter alia, request this Court to dispose of the civil revision petition directing the learned District Judge to dispose of the application for condonation of delay as well as the OP filed under Section 34 of the Act. 5. He would, inter alia, request this Court to dispose of the civil revision petition directing the learned District Judge to dispose of the application for condonation of delay as well as the OP filed under Section 34 of the Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent/DHr would submit as follows:---'Under Section 34 of the Act, an application for setting aside the Award cannot be made after three months time had elapsed from the date on which the arbitral award is received by the party concerned. If any such party files an application for setting aside the award after the said period of three months, he is required to file an application for condonation of delay within a further period of 30 days but not thereafter. Therefore, the District Court is having jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside the award if filed before three months time from the date of receipt of the arbitral award and if filed beyond time when such an application is filed within a further period of 30 days but not thereafter. Even in a case where the application is made within a period of three months plus thirty days, the applicant is required to show sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period of three months. Since in the case on hand, the application for condonation of delay is filed by the revision petitioners beyond the period of three months plus thirty days from the date of service of the arbitral award on the revision petitioners, neither the application for delay nor the application for setting aside the arbitral award, which are filed before the District Court, are maintainable. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any order in this civil revision petition.' 6. We have given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions. 7. Having regard to the facts and submissions, we are inclined to dispose of the civil revision petition with the following directions: 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of directing the learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, to take up, for hearing in accordance with the procedure established by law, the application for condonation of delay filed alongwith the original petition filed by the petitioners herein as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the maintainability of the application for condonation of delay may also be considered by the learned District Judge in the event such a contention is-open and falls for consideration. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.