Once it terminates proceedings, arbitral tribunal cannot pass orders: High Court

Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court declared that once an arbitral tribunal terminates proceedings it cannot subsequently pass any orders ‘on such termination and the arbitral tribunal is rendered functus officio’ and has no jurisdiction to continue arbitral proceedings. The bench comprising, Justice Naveen Rao and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, allowed a revision petition filed by HMDA and Hyderabad Growth Corridor ltd (HGCL). The petitioners entered into an agreement for works to be carried out by Ramky Elsamex for construction, development and maintenance of eight land-controlled expressways from Tukkuguda to Shamshabad on a ‘build operate and transfer’ basis. The agreement had an arbitration clause and both parties had a dispute before a tribunal, headed by a retired High Court judge.

At one point in time, the parties were repeatedly taking adjournment for deposit of fee and if they failed to do so. The proceedings would stand terminated as it would be construed that the parties have no interest. Later, the HGCL took the plea that the tribunal proceedings stood terminated and therefore it couldn’t hear on merits. The presiding arbitrator and the co-arbitrator rejected the plea. After detailed hearing of the matter, the bench speaking through Justice Naveen Rao stated that the tribunal erred in proceeding to hear the matter after the proceedings before it were terminated.

HC sets aside GO imposing penalty on pensioner

Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside a GO for imposing a punishment of five per cent cut in pension against a pensioner. A writ petition was filed by S. Chandrasekhar Reddy who challenged the action of SC development department in issuing the above-mentioned GO. The petitioner contended that the enquiry officer issued show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to impose a penalty of 5% cut in pension for a period of three years and called for explanation. In view of the same, an explanation was given to reconsider the issue and drop the proceedings. The government contended that such a disciplinary action was initiated against nine delinquent officers, including the petitioner, after framing charges. The charges against the petitioner include misappropriation of materials, transport charges and stitching charges and the procedural lapse in affecting promotions. The judge opined that invoking such a rule over the petitioner, who is a retired employee, is unjust, illegal and above all unwarranted.

Proceedings issued by revenue dept set aside over jurisdiction issue

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy Telangana High Court set aside proceedings issued by the revenue department without any jurisdiction. A writ plea was filed by M. Yadaiah questioning the action of the government in issuing a fraudulent notice against a dead person. The petitioner contended that the land in dispute is an agricultural land and is being cultivated by the petitioners from time to time. Further, he also contended that the respondent authorities do not have jurisdiction to determine the subject land of the petitioners as surplus. The judge was of the opinion that it was imperative that the authorities have to find out the proper address of the declarants and the service of notice at the residence of the declarants was mandatory.