HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA CMP No. 4793 of 2026 in CRP SR NO. 23352 OF 2026 M/s.Nandhini Agro Research Centre Represented by its Partner, Sri Rupesh Anand, No.161/31,10th B Main Road, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalaore 5600011 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. S. Chandriah S/o. Late. Subramaniam, Third Floor, AVS Towers, Opp. Taluk Office, Hosur 635 126, Krishnagiri District. 2. V.R.N. Murthy S/o. Late. V.A. Rangaswamy, Villa C2, MIMS Gulmour, Whitefield, Bangalore 560 066. 3. C. Sarasvani Murthy W/o. V.R.N. Murthy, Villa C2, MIMS Gulmour, Whitefield, Bangalore 560066. ..Respondent(s) CRP SR No. 23352 of 2026 M/s.Nandhini Agro Research Centre Represented by its Partner, Sri Rupesh Anand, No.161/31,10th B Main Road, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalaore 5600011 ..Petitioner(s) Vs S.Chandriah S/o.Late Subramaniam, 3rd Floor, AVS Towers, Opp Taluk Office, Hosur 635 126, Krishnagiri District. ..Respondent(s) CMP No. 4793 of 2026 To grant leave to file the Civil Revision Petition against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 10.12.2025 of the Hon’ble Additional District Judge at Hosur in E.P. 212 of 2024 in Arbitration O.P. No.101 of 2022 and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.T. Srikrishna Bhagavat For Respondent(s): Mr.K. Sukumaran, for R1 Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Senior Councel for Mr.S.Vigneshkumar for R2 and R3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA
CMP No. 4793 of 2026
in
CRP SR NO. 23352 OF 2026
M/s.Nandhini Agro Research Centre
Represented by its Partner,
Sri Rupesh Anand,
No.161/31,10th B Main Road,
1st Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalaore 5600011
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. S. Chandriah
S/o. Late. Subramaniam,
Third Floor, AVS Towers,
Opp. Taluk Office,
Hosur 635 126,
Krishnagiri District.
2. V.R.N. Murthy
S/o. Late. V.A. Rangaswamy,
Villa C2, MIMS Gulmour,
Whitefield, Bangalore 560 066.
3. C. Sarasvani Murthy
W/o. V.R.N. Murthy,
Villa C2, MIMS Gulmour,
Whitefield, Bangalore 560066.
..Respondent(s)
CRP SR No. 23352 of 2026
M/s.Nandhini Agro Research Centre
Represented by its Partner,
Sri Rupesh Anand,
No.161/31,10th B Main Road,
1st Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalaore 5600011
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
S.Chandriah
S/o.Late Subramaniam,
3rd Floor, AVS Towers,
Opp Taluk Office,
Hosur 635 126,
Krishnagiri District.
..Respondent(s)
CMP No. 4793 of 2026
To grant leave to file the Civil Revision Petition against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 10.12.2025 of the Hon’ble Additional District Judge at Hosur in E.P. 212 of 2024 in Arbitration O.P. No.101 of 2022 and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.T. Srikrishna Bhagavat
For Respondent(s): Mr.K. Sukumaran,
for R1
Mr.T.Murugamanickam,
Senior Councel
for Mr.S.Vigneshkumar
for R2 and R3
ORDER
This petition is filed to grant leave to file CRP.Sr.No.23352 of 2026 against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hosur in E.P.No.212 of 2024 in Arbitration O.P.No.101 of 2022.
2.The petitioner firm, a third party to the execution proceedings in E.P.No.212 of 2024, being aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2025 passed in the EP, has filed CMP No.4793 of 2026, seeking leave to file the Civil Revision Petition.
3.The facts leading to the filing of the petition, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows: A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between the respondents 1, 2 and 3 on 29.06.2018, at Hosur, Bangalore. Since, disputes arose between the respondents 1, 2 and 3 under the aforesaid MOU, the matter was referred for Arbitration in Arbitration Case No.101 of 2022. In The Arbitration Proceedings, an Award was passed on 16.08.2023, and it was ordered as follows:
“1. The Respondents are directed to execute sale deed/deeds in favour of the Claimant or his nominees in respect of 60.75 acres of lands situated in Kundumaranpalli Village, Denkanikotta Taluk, Kelamangalam Sub-Registration District, Krishnagiri District fully described in the Schedule to MOU dated 29.06.2018, Ex.C-11, for the sale consideration of Rs.46,00,000/- per acre free from all encumbrances as follows:
(a) Within one month from the date of communication of this Award, the Respondents shall finalise the amounts payable to all their creditors connected with the schedule mentioned lands including M/s Aasare Associates, Tamil Nadu Teachers Housing and Welfare Trust (TTHWT) and NOC from M/s Nandhini Agro Research Centre and intimate the Claimant in writing to pay to them on behalf of the Respondents;
(b) On receipt of such written intimation from the Respondents and within one month thereafter the Claimant shall make payment to the said persons/entities as per the written direction of the Respondents during which time the Respondents shall be present and obtain necessary receipt/receipts/NOC original of which shall be handed to the Claimant;
(c) After obtaining such clearance from all of them as per the written letter of the Respondents and within 90 days thereafter, the Respondents shall execute sale deed/deeds in favour of the Claimant or his nominees in respect of 60.75 acres of land situated in Kundumaranpalli Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Kelamangalan Sub Registration District, Krishnagiri District, more fully described in Ex.C-11 MOU cum Agreement dated 29.06.2018 and he claim petition of the Claimant, on condition that the Claimant shall pay the balance sale consideration as per the calculation stated above namely, at the rate of Rs.46,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Six Lakhs) per acre after adjusting the advance amount of Rs.5,35,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Thirty Five Lakhs only).
(d) The Stamp duty, Registration and other connected charges for effecting such sale deed/deeds shall be at the cost of the Claimant.”
4.Pursuant to the aforesaid Award, the 1st respondent filed execution petition in E.P.No.212 of 2024, for execution of the Award. The Executing Court by the impugned order dated 10.12.2025, allowed the EP on the following terms:
“10) In view of the above the decree holder shall pay a sum of Rs.23,51,45,000/- inclusive of TDS to the judgment debtors or on their request to his creditors within three months from today (10.12.2025) and on such payment, the judgment debtors are ordered to pay the dues to their creditors and to execute the registered sale deed to and in favour of the decree holder or his nominees as provided in clause 18(1)(c) of the arbitral award in respect of the schedule properties of execution petition.”
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 alone constituted the partnership firm; while so, the respondents 2 and 3, in collusion with the 1st respondent, surreptitiously entered into a MOU dated 29.06.2018, projecting as though the disputes pertained to the individual properties of respondents 2 and 3, though in fact the properties belonged to the partnership firm. It was further contended that, on the basis of the fraudulent MOU, Arbitration Case No.101 of 2022 was instituted and an Award came to be passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 16.08.2023. According to the learned counsel, the entire arbitral proceedings were vitiated by fraud, since in the MOU, the properties of the partnership firm were dealt with as exclusive properties of the respondents 2 and 3. It was further contended that, though the respondents 2 and 3 initially contested the arbitral proceedings and the execution proceedings, they subsequently yielded to the Award and acted against the interest of the partnership firm. The learned counsel further submitted that, as fraud had been played upon the partnership firm, the petitioner was constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Civil Revision Petition. In support of the contention that the petitioner being an aggrieved person, is entitled to maintain the present proceedings and seek leave of this Court, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of My Palace Mutually Aided Co Operative Society versue B.Mahesh & Ors, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy, which has already been invoked by him. It was further submitted that, even in the light of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition seeking leave is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
7.This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
8.It is not in dispute that the petitioner had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Executing Court by filing petitions under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, challenging the attachment order and under Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC seeking for stay of the execution proceedings. Both the said petitions were dismissed on 12.11.2025, on the ground that no attachment had been passed and that the Executing Court could not go behind the arbitral award. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has already filed CRP’s, which are stated to be pending scrutiny before the Registry.
9.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, once the petitioner has already invoked the statutory remedy Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, by objecting to the attachment proceedings, the present petition seeking leave cannot be entertained.
10.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prakash Agarwal vs. Gopi Krishan, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 296 in para 19 held as follows:
“19. In view of the above, the law on this issue stands crystallised to the effect that the inherent powers enshrined under Section 151 CPC can be exercised only where no remedy has been provided for in any other provision of CPC. In the event that a party has obtained a decree or order by playing a fraud upon the court, or where an order has been passed by a mistake of the court, the court may be justified in rectifying such mistake, either by recalling the said order, or by passing any other appropriate order. However, inherent powers cannot be used in conflict of any other existing provision, or in case a remedy has been provided for by any other provision of CPC. Moreover, in the event that a fraud has been played upon a party, the same may not be a case where inherent powers can be exercised.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has categorically held that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC can be exercised only in cases where no remedy is provided under the Code. It was also held that such inherent powers cannot be exercised in conflict with any express provision of law or where specific remedy is available under CPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even allegations of fraud, cannot, by themselves, justify invocation of inherent powers when the statute provides an effective remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has already availed the remedy under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC by asserting his rights in the execution proceedings. Therefore this Court is of the view that the present petition is not maintainable.
11.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all permissible objections in the CRP’s already filed by him against the orders passed in the proceedings under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC.
Accordingly, this CMP is dismissed. No costs.
29-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dsn
N.MALA J.
dsn
To
The Additional District Judge,
Hosur.
CMP No. 4793 of 2026
in
CRP SR NO. 23352 OF 2026
29-04-2026
