IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10922 of 2012 Between:
Dr. Jayaram Chigurupati .. Petitioner AND Union of India, Rep. by The Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology, New Delhi & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10922 of 2012 ORDER:
This writ petition is instituted by the former Managing Director of Zenotech Laboratories Limited challenging the notice, dated 03.04.2012, issued by the Technology Development Board (second respondent), whereby the petitioner was directed to pay to the Technology Development Board the outstanding dues as on 31.03.2012, which works out to Rs.3,55,38,654/-.
2. Learned counsels representing respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive since on the same issue, the matter was referred to Arbitrator as per the terms of Agreement between respondents 2 and 3, wherein the second and third respondents as well as the petitioner were parties and an award was passed by the Arbitrator on 28.02.2013 determining the amount payable to the Technology Development Board as Rs.2,96,47,545/- and, therefore, the notice, dated 03.04.2012, does not survive and the remedies of parties have to be worked out in accordance with the award passed by the Arbitrator on 28.02.2013.
3. Sri K. Vivek Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not a party to the agreement to refer the disputes to an Arbitrator and the award proceedings were passed by the Arbitrator setting him ex parte and, therefore, he has a serious grievance with reference to including him in the Arbitration proceedings and then passing an award. It is open to petitioner to work out his remedies on the said grievance.
4. In view of the submissions of learned counsels for respondents 2 and 3 that on the same issue an award is passed by the Arbitrator and, therefore, the impugned notice do not subsist, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous leaving it open to the parties to work out their remedies with reference to the award passed by the Arbitrator. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 20th January, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10922 of 2012 Date: 20th January, 2014 KL