The High Court held that the writ appeal was not maintainable because the single judge had exercised territorial jurisdiction under Article 227 rather than acquiring jurisdiction under Article 226.
The writ appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 987/2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE UNION OF INDIA BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY NO.18, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU-560046 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJAY GOWDA N S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S EAGLE MPCC (JV) NO.16, SCS COMPLEX SOUTH CAR STREET NAMAKKAL DISTRICT TIRUCHENGODU-637211(TAMIL NADU) BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SRI U R SUBRAMANYAM ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K S HARISH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.39483/2016 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTIALLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
What was challenged before the learned Single Judge was the order dated 30th June 2016 passed by the learned District Judge on the application made by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent on the basis of the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in the
case of TAMMANNA AND OTHERS vs RENUKA AND OTHERS
in W.A.No.1585/2007 decided on 13th March 2009.
the appellant is that the District Judge who exercised the power did not act as a Civil Court and what was invoked before the learned Single Judge was the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
doubt that there is a reference to both Articles 226 and 227 in the writ petition. But from the prayers made in the petition, we find that
3
none of the writs which are covered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were prayed for and the prayer is only for setting aside the order of the learned District Judge. Therefore, in our view, the appellant had invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal is maintainable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.
Whether the jurisdiction invoked before the learned Single Judge was under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
TAMMANNA AND OTHERS vs RENUKA AND OTHERSReferred¶20
TAMMANNA AND OTHERS vs RENUKA AND OTHERS W.A.No.1585/2007
The Union of India
M/s Eagle MPCC (JV)
Abhay S. Oka
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
