Dismissed

The Karnataka Housing Board v. M/S Anchor Lines Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2022WP/7550/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Holding that a writ petition challenging an attachment order in execution proceedings must be dismissed where the underlying award is sub judice. The High Court observed that voiding the order would effectively allow a challenge to the award, which remains pending before the Commercial Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with costs, and the challenge to the award was to be disposed of within six months.

The Karnataka Housing Board Vs M/S Anchor Lines Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7550 OF 2016(GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD 3^RD FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 REPT BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.H L PRADEEP KUMAR , ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/S ANCHOR LINES PVT LTD., G-1, SUMMER RESIDENCY, KANDAK, MANGALURU – 575 001. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. ABDUL HAMEED.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH M, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 16.1.2016 IN E.X.C 11/2016 PASSED BY 1 ADDL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L AND CONSEQENTLY PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION FOR REJECTION OF THE EXECUTION CASE NO.11/2016 ON THE FILE

¶15

¶16

OF THE PRL 1 ADDL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT DK DISTRICT MANAGALORE.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner – Karnataka Housing Board a statutory authority seeks to lay a challenge to the order dated 16.01.2016 (Annexure-L) issued by the Court below in Execution Case No. 11/2016 whereby apart from attaching the properties in question, a direction has been issued restraining their alienation. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that when the very award itself is unsustainable and a challenge is laid thereto, impugned action could not have been taken. He submits that the respondent award holder company having been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, the arbitration proceedings could not have been taken up. He also notifies to the court the interim stay of award granted by the Commercial Court below.

¶20

¶21

After service of notice, the respondent-awardee

¶22

having entered appearance through its counsel opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He also contends that, the award is already put in challenge and stay of further proceedings having been obtained, the Writ Petition is misconceived. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶24

having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the respondent. As already mentioned above, petitioner’s challenge to the award is

¶25

very much pending before the Commercial Court u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation, Act 1996 and stay of further proceedings has also been obtained. In the meanwhile, Attachment Order has been made in the execution process, is true. Such an order protects both the

¶26

¶27

sides and therefore voiding it would not serve the cause of justice.

¶28

The contention that the award is prima facie not

¶29

sustainable inasmuch as, the respondent – Company is not in existence as a legal person, the same having been struck off from the Register, need not be treated by this Court since, admittedly such a contention is taken up for voiding the award in question in a proceeding filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act and thus, the matter is sub judice is there. Quashing the impugned order on the pleaded ground virtually amounts to allowing the challenge to the award itself and therefore, that cannot be done.

¶30

The vehement submission of learned counsel for

¶31

the petitioner that the impugned order would affect the interest of the allottees, the subject sites/structures having already been allotted to them, is too feeble a ground for setting aside the impugned order which has only the

¶32

¶33

effect of attachment & restraint of alienation. It is more in the nature of a status quo order subject to, outcome of the challenge to the award pending before the Commercial Court.

¶34

In the above circumstances, petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.

¶35

A request is made to learned judge of the Court below to try & dispose off the challenge to the award in question within an outer limit of six months, all contentions having

¶36

been kept open.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Snb/Bsv

The Karnataka Housing Board v. M/S Anchor Lines Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Housing Board v. M/S Anchor Lines Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.B.v.Ravikumar Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. Anitha B M Vs Sri Ravishankar T v

M/S Kaveri Telecom Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dena Bank

State of Karnataka Vs Karnataka Housing Board

State of Karnataka Vs Karnataka Housing Board

State of Karnataka Vs Karnataka Housing Board