vv IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO lA No.2 OF 2025 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 484 OF 2025 lA No.2 OF 2025 Between: Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Limited, 216 KJS Complex, Bhagya Nagar, Kumool, Andhra Pradesh - 518004, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Mr. J Srinivasulu ...APPELLANT AND 1. MAERSK, A/S, 50 Esplanaden DK-1263 Copenlragen K Denmark, Rep. by its Authorized Signatories Mr. Casper Munch and Mr. Jacob Ramsgaard Nielsen. ...RESPONDENT No.1 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary to G. A.D, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT No.2 Petition under Section 5 limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 504 days in filing the present writ appeal. W-J.. / ‘ WRIT APPEAL NO: 484 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 03.11.2025 in W.P. No. 28852 of 2023 on the file of the High Court. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 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 order in W.P No. 28852 of 2023 dated 03'^^ November 2023 pending the disposal of the writ appeal and restrain the Respondent No. 1 from initiating any proceedings against the Appellant before the English High Court including but not limited to contempt proceedings. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. SANJAY KISHORE Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI VIVEK CHANDRASEKHAR APPEARING FOR M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following: JUDGMENT f-'. I 4 4 Bench Sr.No:-48 [3446] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010206762025 l A.No.2 of 2025 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 484 of 2025 M/s.Sree Rayalaseema Hi Strength Hypo Ltd. s ...Appellant Vs. ...Respondents Maersk and others ********** Mr. P. Sri Raghuram, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing vice Mr. A. Sanjay Kishore Advocates for Resporrdents: Mr, Vivek “^ndrasekhar appearing vice M/s.Indus Law Firm, GP for General Administration CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO ; 20“^ June, 2025. Advocate for Appellant; DATE PC; 15 of the Letters Patent has order dated 03.11.2023, as further extended No.28852 of 2023. By virtue of The present Writ Appeal under Clause been preferred against an interim vide order, dated 23.11.2023, in Writ Petition learned Single Judge of this Court had stayed the order dated 03.11.2023, a order of injunction dated 15.07.2023 passed by the Trial Court in Original the Suit bearing O.S.No.373 of 2023. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under; f 2 HCJ & RRRJ^ WA_484_2025 The appellant - Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Limited, claims that it entered into four contracts of carriage with respondent No.1 - MAERSK A/S for the transshipment of certain products through respondent by sea in their vessel “MA/ MAERSK SEOUL”. The said vessel is stated to have caught fire on 19.07.2015 at a port in Dubai, leading to losses being suffered by the respondent No.1 herein. A legal notice, dated 18.06.2021, is stated to have been served upon the appellant seven years after the alleged incident, claiming damages. It appears from the record that on 16.06.2021, respondent No.1 instituted proceedings against the appellant before the English High Court in regard to the four contracts of carriage, alleging breach of obligations in regard to the said contracts. On 28.03.2023, the appellant instituted an Original Suit bearing O.S.No.373 of 2023 before the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, seeking the following reliefs; “a) To grant a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant declaring that the parties are amenable and subject to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court; and b) To grant a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant restraining the Defendant, its officers, its agents, and any person/person(s) claiming through or under the Defendant from taking any action, steps or initiating any proceedings, or pursuing any further actions before the English Court of Justice in London.” By virtue of an ex-parte order dated 15.07.2023, the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kurnool issued an ad-interim injunction against respondent No.1 restraining them from starting or instituting or pursuing any HCJ & RRRJ \A/A_484_2025 4 - and restraining them from taking any proceedings in any other jurisdiction further steps in proceedings in foreign Courts. Aggrieved by the same, of a Writ of Certiorari to learned Single Judge of respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition seeking issuance quash the ex-parte order dated 15.07.2023 before a this Court. Writ Petition No-28852 of By virtue of order dated 03.11.2023, passed in 2023, the learned Single Judge by the Trial Court. Subsequently, on England and Wales passed an order in an had stayed the operation of the order passed 09.11.2023, the High Court of Justice in anti-suit injunction application with procure any claim against a direction to the appellant herein, not to pursue or respohdent No.1 in the Ihdian Courts. The appellant was also prohibited from setting aside or otherwise filing an appeal against the seeking modification or order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2023 on 03.11.2023. This order was 19.02.2024 passed by the aforesaid Court in England. in Writ Petition No.28852 of subsequently followed vide order dated that the suit was finally withdrawn on with the direction contained in the order from the record It appears 20.03.2024. This was in accordance dated 19.02.2024 passed by the preferred against the order dated Single Judge, much after the withdrawal of the suit on English Court. The present writ appeal has 03.11.2023 passed by the learned 20.03.2024 by the been appellant. \ Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, would submit that the clearly unsustainable in law inasmuch 3. order impugned dated 03.11.2023 was I HCJ & RRRJ WA 484_2025 ^ as no Writ Petition was maintainable against an order of injunction passed by a Civil Court and that the Civil Court’s order could have been challenged only under Article 227 of the R/' by way of either a statutory appeal, a revision or Constitution of India before the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others\ 4. It was also emphatically alleged that the writ petitioner had deliberately incorporated the General Administration Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh as a party respondent in the writ petition with a view only to somehow seek the issuance of Writ of Certiorari inasmuch as the Writ of Certiorari could be issued only against the State or an instrumentality of the State. It was sought to be alleged that in the instant case the dispute did not at all involve either the State of Andhra Pradesh or any of its instrumentalities or State- owned entities and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the order impugned. 5. There is, certainly, no doubt on the legal proposition that judicial orders passed by Civil Courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are inclined to agree with the Senior Counsel for the appellant that the order impugned as was passed by the learned single Judge is not ^2015) 5 see 423 V 5 HCJ & RRRJ WA 484 2025 sustainable in law, in view of the aforesaid settled principle of law and that there was no occasion for the writ petitioner to have incorporated the General Administration Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh as a party respondent inasmuch as it was not a party to the dispute which was purely commercial in nature between the appellant and the petitioner. However, we need not at this stage delve into the entire controversy inasmuch as the appellant herein kept quiet all the while from 03.11.2023 till the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal on 21.04.2025. Not only this, the present appeal has been preferred well after the appellant withdrew its suit on 20.03.2024, in accordance with the directions issued on 09.11.2023 and 19.02.2024 by the English Court. 6. In view of the fact that the suit stands withdrawn, interim direction dated 15.07.2023 passed by the Trial Court would necessarily be no longer in existence thereby rendering the entire controversy academic. 7. The present writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to 8. costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to G. A.D, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. One CC to Sri A. Sanjay Kishore, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s. Indus Law Firm, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to GP for General Administration, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 5. Three CD Copies. ssb 7 HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 JUDGMENT lA No.2 of 2025 In/and 3 0 JUN 2025 WA.No.484 of 2025 Co ^s^^ufrent DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS