Dismissed

Sri. H.M. Jagadish v. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2021WP/44527/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of an executing court at Chikmagalur to enforce an arbitral award passed in Mumbai. Relying on Sundaram Finance, the court held that execution of arbitral awards transcends territorial barriers. The petitioner was directed to pay the deposited amount to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with a direction to release the amount deposited to the respondent No.1.

Sri. H.M. Jagadish Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.44527 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. H.M. JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O M.K. MANJUNATH, R/O GANGANAMAKKI, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, K.M. ROAD, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT PIN-577132.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. S. AISHWARYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.N. RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., GATEWAY BUILDING, APPOLLO BUNDER, MUMBAI REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER SRI. ROBIN K. NEELLIYARA S/O N.K KURIEN, AGED 33 YEARS R/A NEAR DEVI TEMPLE, BASROOR KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DIST.-576201.

¶11

SRI. H.G. RAGHU S/O SHANKAR SHETTY, R/O HIDUVALAHALLI

¶12

¶13

ABBANNA ROAD, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL ALUR-573213 HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 15.06.2016 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2013 PASSED IN EX.NO.160/2013 BY THE HON'BLE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, AT CHIKMAGALURU AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2015 ISSUING ARREST WARRANT AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition is filed challenging the legality and propriety of the proceedings initiated in Execution Petition No.160/2013 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Chikmagalur, on the ground that the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to execute the award passed by an Arbitrator at Mumbai.

¶20

The respondent No.1 herein had initiated proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

¶21

¶22

1996 for arbitration of a dispute at Mumbai and the seat of arbitration was at Mumbai. The learned Arbitrator after issuing notice to the petitioner herein, passed an award on 13.02.2012 directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,12,672/- with interest stated therein. The said decree was sought to be executed before the District Court at Chikmagalur, which after considering the enforceability of the award passed the impugned Order dated 21.02.2015 to arrest the petitioner herein for recovery of the decretal amount.

¶23

The said order is challenged in the present petition on the ground that the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to straightaway entertain an application for executing an award passed by the learned Arbitrator. It is contended that the respondent No.1 ought to have initiated proceedings before the District Court at Mumbai to implement the award passed by the learned Arbitrator and thereafter seek transfer before the District Court at Chikmagalur. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for

¶24

¶25

terminating the proceedings before the Executing Court on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction.

¶26

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand, contended that the very same question fell for consideration before the Hon`ble Apex Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs Abdul Samad and Another [2018 (3) SCC 622] where the Apex Court held in paragraph No.19 as follows:

¶27

“19. The Madras High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari and Ors. [2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1290] referred to Section 46 of the said Code, which spoke of precepts but stopped at that. In the context of the Code, thus, the view adopted is that the decree of a civil court is liable to be executed primarily by the court, which passes the decree where an execution application has to be filed at the first instance. An award under Section 36 of the said Act, is equated to a decree of the court for the purposes of execution and only for that purpose. Thus, it was rightly observed that while an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is deemed to be a decree under Section 36 of the said Act, there was no deeming fiction anywhere to hold that the court within whose jurisdiction

¶28

¶29

the arbitral award was passed should be taken to be the court, which passed the decree. The said Act actually transcends all territorial barriers.”

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to deny the fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the very same question and has held that the execution petition can be filed anywhere in the Country to enforce the arbitral award as it transcends all territorial barriers.

¶32

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶33

The amount in deposit is ordered to be released to the respondent No.1.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

sma

Sri. H.M. Jagadish v. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H.M. Jagadish v. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Arudrama Developments Private Limited Vs M Manjula

Sri Suraksha Kantharaj Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumanthappa Vs Rathnamma

Sri C R Raghavendra Reddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner

S Peter @ Pradeep Vs Mrs Sivagamy

Sri S Thimappa Vs the State of Karnataka