Allowed

M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. M/S Alliance Projects

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2023MFA/2757/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal against a trial court order dismissing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the impugned order could not be sustained as it failed to assign reasons. The matter was remitted to the Commercial Court to be decided afresh.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Commercial Court to decide the same afresh within three months.

M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs M/S Alliance Projects — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24760-DB MFA No.2757 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2757 OF 2021 (AA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., NO.48, CASA MAJOR ROAD EGMORE, CHENNAI-600008 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. R. SWAMINATHAN.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. C.K. NANDAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADV.,)

¶13

AND:

¶14

M/S. ALLIANCE PROJECTS NO.556, JEEVAN ANAND BUILDING SECOND FLOOR, ANNA SALAI TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI-600018.

¶15

MR. MANOJ SAI NAMBURU PARTNER/CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S ALLIANCE PROJECTS, NO.556 JEEVAN ANAND BUILDING SECOND FLOOR, ANA SALAI TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI-600018.

¶16

MR. SUNIL REDDY PARTNER/DIRECTOR M/S ALLIANCE PROJECTS, NO.556 JEEVAN ANAND BUILDING SECOND FLOOR, ANA SALAI TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI-600018.

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:24760-DB MFA No.2757 of 2021

¶18

M/S ALLIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (P) LTD NO.85, KARTHIK NAGAR MARATHAHALLI K R PURAM RING ROAD BENGALURU-560037.

¶19

MR. SUNEEL BOMMIREDDY S/O MR. B.V. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY 7, ADARSH PALM RETREAT DEVARABISANA HALLI MARATAHALLI SARJAPUR OUTER RING ROAD BENGALURU-560037.

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DORAISWAMY RAJU (SOLE ARBITRATOR) FORMER JUDGE, SUPREM COURT OF INDIA KANAKA DURGA, NO.20, OLD NO.39 PURAM PRAKASA RAO ROAD BALAJI NAGAR, ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI-600014.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. GANESH S, ADV., FOR SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5 V/O DTD: 14.7.2021 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 37(1)(c) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED. 06.08.2020, PASSED IN A.S. NO.86/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-25), DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF FILED U/SEC.34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996.

¶24

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

¶25

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24760-DB MFA No.2757 of 2021

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the

¶28

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) on the file of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City has been filed against the judgment dated 06.08.2020 by which the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act has been dismissed.

¶29

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

¶30

GANATANTRIK NAGRIK¹ , reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an

¶31

1 (2010) 3 SCC 732

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24760-DB MFA No.2757 of 2021

¶33

essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making

¶34

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

¶35

OTHERS² , SANT LAL GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. MODERN CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS³ , UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. TALWINDER SINGH⁴ , and UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR⁵ ].

¶36

In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the requirement of assigning reasons have been held as part of justice by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On perusal of judgment dated 06.08.2020 passed by the Trial Court, it is evident that no reasons have been assigned by the Trial Court while deciding the petition preferred by the

¶37

appellant.

¶38

2 (2010) 9 SCC 486

¶39

3 (2010) 13 SCC 336

¶40

4 (2012) 5 SCC 480

¶41

5 (2015) 12 SCC 291

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24760-DB MFA No.2757 of 2021

¶43

Accordingly, the impugned judgment cannot be

¶44

sustained in the eye of law. The amount deposited by the appellant in terms of interim order passed by this Court, may be refunded.

¶45

In the result, the appeal is disposed of. Matter is remitted to the Commercial Court to decide the same afresh expeditiously after hearing the parties, within an outer limit of three months from today.

¶46

Consequently, the pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. M/S Alliance Projects

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. M/S Alliance Projects

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

Smt. Gangamma M Vs Sri B C Renukaiah

Anuradha Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Vishal Soni Vs M/S. Sorting Hat Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Bangalore Development Authority Vs M/S. Mittal Steel Limited

Smt. Ravina Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Basavaraja. N Vs State of Karnataka