Remanded

Sri Sandeep G Parvatikar v. Sri Srikakula Kondandaram Ramadhyani

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2023COMAP/34/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act challenged a Commercial Court order rejecting a Section 34 petition. The High Court held that the impugned judgment was unsustainable as it was passed without assigning reasons, violating principles of natural justice, and remitted the matter for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment dated 03.12.2021 set aside; matter remitted to Commercial Court for fresh hearing within three months.

Sri Sandeep G Parvatikar Vs Sri Srikakula Kondandaram Ramadhyani — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB COMAP No.34 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶9

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.34 OF 2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by RUPA V

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. SANDEEP G. PARVATIKAR SON OF SRI. G.M. PARVATIKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1077, 5TH A MAIN GOKUL 1ST STAGE, II PHASE MATHIKERE, BANGALORE - 560054.

¶14

SRI. S.R. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY SON OF SRI. M. SIDDAIAH SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS.

¶15

2(a) SMT. ARUNA MALLIKARJUNASWAMY WIFE OF SRI. S.R. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY AGED MAJOR.

¶16

2(b) MS. AMRUTHA DAUGHTER OF SRI. S.R. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY AGED MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER SMT. ARUNA MALLIKARJUNASWAMY.

¶17

2 TO 2(b) ARE RESIDING AT 117 II CROSS, 7TH MAIN BHUVANESHWARINAGAR T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE.

¶18

M/S ATALANATA PUMPS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RAMSON BUILDING, SJP ROAD

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB COMAP No.34 of 2022

¶21

BANGALORE - 560041 REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SRI SANDEEP G. PARVATIKAR.

¶22

…APPELLANTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. MURALIDHARA C, ADV.,)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SRI. SRIKAKULA KODANDARAM RAMADHYANI SON OF SHRI SRIKAKULA KODANDARAM RAM RESIDING AT NO.30009/2 17TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN BANASHANKARI II STAGE BENGALURU - 560070.

¶26

1(a) SMT. NIRMALA RAMADHYANI W/O SRIKKULA KODANDARAM RAMDHYANI AGED MAJOR.

¶27

1(b) SMT. SHALINI PARIGI D/O SRIKKULA KODANDARAM RAMDHYANI AGED MAJOR.

¶28

1(c) NAGANAND RAMDHYANI SRIKAKULA S/O SRIKKULA KODANDARAM RAMDHYANI AGED MAJOR.

¶29

RESPONDENTS NOS.1(a) TO 1(c) RESIDING AT NO.30009/2 17TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN BANASHANKARI II STAGE BENGALURU - 560070.

¶30

SRI. KAMASAMUDRAM M. RAMKRISHNA PRASAD S/O K.R. MARKANDEGOWDA R/AT. 452, 39TH CROSS 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, ADV., FOR R1 (a to c) SRI. S. MAHESH, ADV., FOR C/R2)

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB COMAP No.34 of 2022

¶35

THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W SECTION 37 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION SUIT NO.69/2019 ON THE FILE OF LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (COMMERCIAL COURT). CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE LEARNED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL IN THE ARBITRATION CASE NOS.42/2018 R/W 96/2018. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 03/12/2021 PASSED BY THE LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (COMMERCIAL COURT) IN COM.A.S.NO.69/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 21/01/2019 BEFORE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL COMPRISING OF JUSTICE SRI. ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS WITH COSTS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶36

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Mr.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior counsel for the appellant.

¶39

Mr.Kiran V.Ron, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(c).

¶40

This intra Court appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed against judgment

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB COMAP No.34 of 2022

¶43

dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Commercial Court by which petition filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act has been rejected.

¶44

Taking into account the nature of order which we propose to pass after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, it is not necessary to advert with the facts of the case. It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme court in VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK¹ , reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making

¶45

process. [SEE: MAYA DEVI Vs. RAJ KUMARI BATRA AND

¶46

OTHERS² , SANT LAL GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. MODERN

¶47

1 (2010) 3 SCC 732

¶48

2 (2010) 9 SCC 486

¶49

- 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB COMAP No.34 of 2022

¶50

CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND

¶51

OTHERS³ , UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. TALWINDER SINGH⁴ , and UNION OF INDIA Vs.

¶52

RAVINDER KUMAR⁵ ].

¶53

In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident

¶54

that the requirement of assigning reasons have been held as part of justice by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On perusal of judgment dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Trial Court, it is evident that no reasons have been assigned by the Commercial Court while deciding the petition preferred by the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶55

In the result, the appeal is disposed of. Matter is remitted to the Commercial Court to decide the same

¶56

3 (2010) 13 SCC 336

¶57

4 (2012) 5 SCC 480

¶58

5 (2015) 12 SCC 291

¶59

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB COMAP No.34 of 2022

¶60

afresh after hearing the parties, within an outer limit of three months from today.

¶61

All contentions are kept to be agitated before the Commercial Court.

¶62

Needless to state that the deposit made by the appellant in pursuance of interim order passed in this appeal, shall abide by the decision taken by the Commercial Court.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

Sri Sandeep G Parvatikar v. Sri Srikakula Kondandaram Ramadhyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sandeep G Parvatikar v. Sri Srikakula Kondandaram Ramadhyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Raj Ranjan Moharana Vs Ms. Narmada Moharana

Smt Lakshmi N H Vs Sri Venkatesh D.G

G E India Industrial Private Limited Vs J K Steel Traders

M/S Smart Owner Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Kamal Kumar

M/S Smart Owner Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Kamal Kumar

The Managing Director Vs Sri L Kalappa