Sparsh Hospitals and Critical Care Private Limited, v. Cancer Treatment Services Hyderabad Private Limited,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-21. Sparsh Hospitals and Critical Care Private Limited, v. Cancer Treatment Services Hyderabad...
Judgment text
[34e1 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR RC co AP L 22 Appeal filed under section 37(1xb) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 R/w Section 13 of the commercial courts Act, 2015 against the Judgment and decree dated 10. 02. 2026 passed in c. o. P No. 2g of 20260n the file of the court of the Judge, Principal special court in the cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad. Between: Sparsh Hospitals and critical care Private Limited, Having its Registered office atPlot No'A1407, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneshwar 7510O7, Odisha State, lndia. Rep By its Director Finance giOnuOhusan Sri Nayak. ... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND cancer Treatment Hyderabad private 99ry]9".
Limited, Having its Registered office at Door N9 11aor1tccii, Nailagandra virrage, seriringampagy Mandar, Hyderabad 500019, Telangana, lndia, F"pr"r"ntJby ''-- -' its Authorised Signatory Mohammed Faisal Siddiqui ... RESPONDENT/PETITION ER t. A. :2OF 2026 Petition under section 151 of cPC R/w filed under Section 37(1xb) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 RAI/ section 13 of the commercial courts Act, 2015 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of petition' the High the court may be pleased to sUSPEND the operation or1t. impugned order dated 10. o2. 2026 oassed. by the principal Special court in Judge for rriert the cadre of District and Disoosat. of C;. ;;. ;;;;ff;r",5itl, p Civit Cou( c o No 28 at Hyderabad, 0f 2026, in. or",. in r. io'o-. J[,u. ir"Ji? ".. 6. 6s,52,278t-in rhe within four weeks Triar from courr oinotiJ""{l"d"orJ. 'lir",l order deems fit and proper ". *i"-. or orders as this Courr to the ctrcumstances of the case.
counser for the Appefiant : Mr. G. vidyasagar senior counser representing Mr. Sai prasen Gundavaram, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. D Narendar Naik The Court delivered the following: {) HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATT. A,CHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR COMCA No. 22 OF 2026 DATE: 2 . o4. 20/26 Between: Sparsh Hospitals and Critical Care private Limited ... Appellant And Canccr Treatme:nt Services Hyderabad Private Limited, Respondent Mr. G. Vidyasagar, Iearned senior counsel representing Mr. Sai prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr. D. Narendar Naik. learned counsel appearing for the respondent. JUDGMENT: (Per l{onble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) l. The commercial court Appeal has been filed against an order dated 10. 02 . 2026 passed by the learncd commercial court in a commercial original Petition (c. o. p. No.
28 of 2026i filed by the respondent under section 9 of rhe Arbitration and conciliation Acr, 1996 ('the t996 ActJ. Ttre respondent sought tbr an ex parte arl-interim order directing the appellant to secure the admitted outstanding dues of Rs. 6,6g,S2,2Tgl-along with contra(:tual interest@ I5%o per annum from the due date till the date o1' payment by depositing the sum into the Court with liberty to the respondent to withdraw the same. 2. Ety the impugned order, the Commercial Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 6,69,52,2781- in Court within 4 weeks from the date of service of notice on the appellant and made t. ee matter returnable on L7. O3. 2026. 3. Vy'e have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. T'he primary contention of learned Senior Counsel appear. ng for the appellant is that the Commercial Court erred in giving the impugned direction ex parte and without sufficient reason{i for the same.
Senior Counsel submits that the appellant was set ex parteas on the date of the impugned ord. er. 5. L,earned counsel appearing for the respondent (petitioner in the C. O. P) relies on the appellant's reply dated 21. 09. 2024 contenrling that it contains an admission of the appellant's obligation to pay Rs. 6,69,52,2781 . 6. The respondent filed the C. O. P under section 9 of the - 1996 l\ct seeking ex parte ad-interim measures specifically I . , praying for a direction on the respondent to secure the admitted amount. By the impugned order dated 10. 02. 2026, the Commercial Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 6,69,52,2781- in Court within lour weeks from the service of notice and made the matter returnable on 17. 03. 2026. The Court is informed that the appellant sought for at least four adjournments before the Commercial Court. The respondent (petitioner in the C. O. P) filed an application for non-compliance of the direction passed by' the Trial Court.
The Court is also informed that thc n-latter is posted today for compliance. 7. Without going into the merils of the case, we note that the respondent sent live mails to the appellant on 3O. O8. 2O24, O3. O9. 2024, 09. O9. 2024, 12. 09. 2024 and 16. 09. 2024 regarding the outstanding amount of Rs. 13,01,10,4181- payable by the appellant to the respondent. One of such mails dated 16. O9. 2024 has bt':en placed for our perusal. 8. The Court is informed that the appellant failed to respond to any of the five mails and finally responded by way of a mail dated 21. O9. 2024. We have carefully perused this mail. The mail contains a tabulated statement of the particulars due from the appellant to the respondent and is headlined, 'Financial arrangement the total amount due to AOI is tabulated bek>w'. \ I AOI stands for American Oncologr Institute which responc. ent entity. The last row of the table specilies Payable to AOI'as 'Rs. 6,69,52,2T8f -. , 9.
Although senior counsel seeks to rely on the immedirrtely following the table to argue thar the dispute,l the said amount, we are unable to contention. The table in the appellant's mail datcd gives a clear and unequivocal indication of the admitted liability to the respondent, ar least to the Rs. 6,69,52,278/-. Moreover, the paragraph following the table reirerates rhe appellant's liability responclent to Rs. 6. 69 crores, approximatel. v. The dispute now sought to be raised by thc appellant is not from this paragraph. 10. \f,'e, accordingly, find no error in the impugned regarding the appellant's admission of liability to Lhe to the extent of Rs. 6,69,52,2781-. 1 1. hrimani Alloys Limited, vs. Tata steel Limited. t supporl. s the case of the respondent since the Supreme held that an admission should be categorical and should ' 2o t t scc: onL. ine SC 890 a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it.
In the present case, the table contained in the appellant's email dated 21. og. 2024 constitutes such an unequivocal admission, aligning with the principles of order XII Rule 6 of 'lhe code of civil procedirie, 190g, regarding Uudgment on Admissions,. 12. Hence, we do not find any scope for interference with the impugned order dated Lo. o2. 2026. Needless to S. y, the appellant has liberty to contest the c. o. p. in accordance with Iaw. 13. coMCA No. 22 of 2026, arong with alr connected applicaticln, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judge, Principal Special Court in the Cadre Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Mr. D Narendar Naik, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies DL/KA $\t-f \ \ HIGH COURT DATED: 21104t202G 1 ttE o JUDGMENT U d: 27 iiiri ? rlt COMCA. No. 22 ot 2026 .
L DISMISSING THE COMCA @ qW til&
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.