M/S. Cinema Ventures PVT., Limited vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

M/s. Cinema Ventures Pvt. Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the actions of the Police (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5) and an Advocate Receiver (Respondent No. 8) as illegal and arbitrary. The Petitioner alleged that these respondents, accompanied by the Receiver, entered the Petitioner's premises, threatened employees, and seized property based on an order dated May 19, 2022, allegedly passed by an Arbitrator (Respondent No. 7). The Petitioner claimed this action violated their constitutional rights. The dispute stemmed from a lease agreement with M/s. G.S.G. Builders and Infrastructure Ltd. (Respondent No. 6), which had invoked arbitration. An order was passed directing the Petitioner to deposit monthly rent with GST and property tax. Subsequently, the Arbitrator appointed Respondent No. 8 as Receiver to take possession of the property with police assistance.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands and had parallel remedies available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petitioner had suffered an order on December 13, 2021, directing the deposit of rent with GST and property tax, and had failed to appear before the Arbitrator on May 17, 2022, leading to the appointment of the Receiver. The Court found no independent cause of action for the Petitioner to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that if there were procedural irregularities in the execution of the Arbitrator's order, the Petitioner's remedy was to approach the Arbitrator or pursue remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The police were acting upon the Arbitrator's order and the Receiver's requisition for protection. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the actions of the respondents, particularly the police, who were acting in compliance with judicial/quasi-judicial orders. The Petitioner's prayer for a mandamus was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the police (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5) and the Advocate Receiver (Respondent No. 8) in entering the Petitioner's premises, threatening employees, and seizing property, purportedly based on an order of the Arbitrator (Respondent No. 7) dated May 19, 2022, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the respondents, particularly the police and the Receiver, acted without proper notice and due process. They argued that the seizure of property and interference with business operations were high-handed and unconstitutional. The Petitioner sought to restrain further interference by the police and initiation of action against the police personnel for alleged connivance with Respondent No. 6 and 8. Revenue/State's Arguments: The Assistant Government Pleader for the State submitted that the police (Respondents 4 and 5) acted upon a requisition from the Advocate Receiver (Respondent No. 8) to provide assistance in executing the Arbitrator's order dated May 19, 2022. They denied any independent interference with the Petitioner's possession or business operations, stating their actions were solely in compliance with the Arbitrator's directions.