APHC010447572021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1250/2021 Between: 1. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, (PRESENTLY VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - VMRDA), REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, UDYOG BHAVAN COMPLEX, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, (PRESENTLY VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - VMRDA), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER, UDYOG BHAVAN COMPLEX, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. M/S MARUTI ENGINEERING COMPANY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.Y.KONDALARAO, D.NO.9-11-8/2, SHIVAJIPALEM, VISAKHAPALNAM 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, GROUND FLOOR, UDYOG BHAVAN COMPLEX, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set-aside the order dated 8.7.2021 passed in C.E.P.No.14/2020 in C.A.O.P.No.27/2017 by the Court of the Special. Judge for trial and diSposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to suspend the order dated 8.7.2021 passed in C.E.P.No.14/2020 in C.A.O.P.No.27/2017 by the Court of the Special Judge for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Somisetty Ganesh Babu SC For VUDA and MUDA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SUDHA MADHURI GOVINDU 2. SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1250 OF 2021 ORDER: 1. The petitioners are challenging the Order dated 08.07.2021 passed in C.E.P.No.14 of 2020 in C.A.O.P.No.27 of 2017 by the learned Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Vishakapatnam. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the 1st respondent has entered into an agreement for construction of an Indoor Stadium at Anakapalli Town on term basis. The respondent was a successful bidder and an agreement was entered with the Chief Engineer of the petitioners herein. The work was completed and the final bill was due payable. In terms of the dispute resolution clause in the agreement for construction, the respondent has invoked the dispute resolution clause and filed Arbitration Petition No.119 of 2008 before this Court. Hon’ble Sri Justice B.V. Rangaraju, former Judge of this Court was appointed as a sole Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator has passed an award on 20.07.2012 directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.1,10,29,971/- and Rs.55,000/- which was imposed as penalty on three occasions with interest at 12% from 21.07.2008 as claimed in Ex.C11 upto the date of Award i.e. 20.07.2012 and further interest at 18% on the total amount of Rs.1,10,84,971/- from the date of Award till the date of realization. The claimant was also entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards costs of the arbitration proceedings. The petitioners aggrieved by the Award filed CAOP.No.27 of 2017 (old A.O.P.No.1478 of 2012) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam has vide order dated 08.11.2019 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent filed an Execution Petition vide C.E.PNo.14 of 2020 and sought the attachment of the amount lying in custody of Branch Manager in Indian Overseas Bank, Ground Floor, Udyogabavan Complex, Siripuram Junction, Vishakapatnam belonging to the petitioners. The learned Judge has allowed the C.E.P and issued Order XXI Rule 52 CPC attachment notice to the Garnishee for an amount of Rs.3,31,81,987/- lying in custody of the Garnishee i.e. Indian Overseas Bank, Visakhapatnam. 3. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the said order and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the grant of interest at an abnormal rate of 18% is illogical and also submitted that the petitioners submitted an undertaking before the authorities that the petitioners shall not claim any amounts for the additional work done. It is further submitted that attaching the bank account of the petitioners shall cause immense hardship in day to day functioning, the petitioners have complied with the interim orders of this Court and deposited the amount of Rs.3,31,81,987/-. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the respondent could not withdraw the said amount as he had suffered a cardiac arrest and is presently recovering. It is further submitted that the tender was initially floated for the construction of an Indoor Stadium with a total extent of 18,850 square feet. Thereafter, a supplementary agreement was entered into, requiring the respondent to construct a total extent of 23,330 square feet. However, by the time the work was completed, the respondent had constructed an extent of 43,235 square feet. The issue was considered by the learned Arbitrator, who held that the petitioners are liable to pay the respondent for the excess extent of construction. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the objections raised by the petitioners were duly considered by the learned Arbitrator as well as by the Special Court in C.A.O.P. No.27 of 2017, and therefore, the same cannot be re-agitated afresh in the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Perused the material on record. 6. The short point for consideration is ; Whether this Court can interfere with the impugned order issuing a garnishee order attaching an amount of Rs.3,31,81,987/- ? 7. On the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have suffered an award and were directed to pay the amounts in terms thereof. It is also not in dispute that the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed by the learned Special Court on 08.11.2019. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the petitioners have preferred any further appeal and obtained a stay of operation of the award. In the absence of any material to show that the award has been stayed by an order of this Court, no grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court, and the same is liable to be sustained. 8. However, considering the submission that the petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.3,31,81,987/- into the account of the Court below, the 1st respondent shall be permitted to withdraw the same upon furnishing a copy of his Aadhaar Card before the learned Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Visakhapatnam. The petitioners shall also comply with the award in letter and spirit by paying the interest accrued thereon from the date the amount became due till the date of deposit of Rs.3,31,81,987/- before the said Court, within a period of twelve weeks, and thereafter till the date of realization, in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 296 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1250 of 2021 Dated 08.04.2026 KGM