LAWS(TLNG)-2025-2-32

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. Vs. HBT GMBH

Decided On February 27, 2025
SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. Appellant
V/S
Hbt Gmbh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of the Commercial Court Appeal is an order dtd. 4/11/2024 passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (Commercial Court) allowing an Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.60 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.46 of 2023) filed by the respondent No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Sec. 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for rejection of plaint. By the impugned order, the Commercial Court rejected the plaint filed by the appellant in C.O.S.No.46 of 2023.

(2.) The appellant filed the Suit (C.O.S.No.46 of 2023) for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (M/s.H.B.T. GMBH) from continuing to resolve its claims through arbitration before the defendant No.2 (the International Court of Arbitration in International Chamber of Commerce) (ICA) under the Agreements dtd. 18/12/2009 and 11/4/2011. The defendant No.2 is the second respondent in this appeal. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint arose on 29/4/2023 with the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 invoking the arbitration clause in the Agreement dtd. 18/12/2009 against the appellant and on 31/8/2023 when the defendant No.2 (ICA) directed the parties to nominate their Co-Arbitrators. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint includes 29/9/2023 when the respondent No.2/ICA directed the appellant/plaintiff to nominate its Co-Arbitrator.

(3.) The respondent No.1 filed the Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.60 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.46 of 2023) under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C stating that the plaint in the C.O.S. deserves to be rejected since the appellant had an equally efficacious remedy under Sec. 16 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) and also under the law pronounced by the Supreme Court declaring that a Civil Suit is not maintainable where the existence or validity of an Arbitration Agreement has been questioned by a party. The respondent No.1 accordingly sought for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint is barred by law.