Partly allowed

B Krishnamurthy v. K C Subramani

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2023WP/48925/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that the District Court erred in allowing a cross-examination application in arbitration proceedings without considering relevant Supreme Court decisions. The order quashing the lower court's approval was issued.

What did the court decide?

The District Court's order allowing cross-examination is quashed; the respondents' application is restored for reconsideration.

B Krishnamurthy Vs K C Subramani — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:30840 WP No. 48925 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 48925 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

B KRISHNAMURTHY S/O D S BHEEMA RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/A NAGARATH PET CHINTAMANI TOWN-563125 CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VARADARAJAN M S.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

K C SUBRAMANI S/O KARUPAKALA VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

S NIRMALA W/O K C SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶16

GIRISH

¶17

S/O K C SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶18

ALL ARE R/A 4TH CROSS POST SATTAR SAB ROAD SONNASHETTY HALLI CHINTAMANI-563125

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. J R JAGADISH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:30840 WP No. 48925 of 2018

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO..5 IN AS NO.9/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR (ANNEXUREA);DISMISS THE SAID I.A. I.E., I.A.NO.5 FILED BY RESPONDENTS HEREIN IN AS NO.9/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR (ANNEXURE-F).

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition is by the respondent in A.S.No.9/2015 on the file of the Principal District and

¶27

Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur [for short, ' the District Court' ]. The petitioner is aggrieved by the District Court's order dated 10.10.2018, and the District Court by this order has allowed the respondents' application [IA No.5] filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 [ CPC ] permitting cross examination of the petitioner before it. The District Court’s reasoning reads as under:

¶28

" 7. The present Arbitration suit is filed against the impugned award, dated 3.6.2015 passed by the Arbitrator in arbitral dispute No.1/2013 and it appears that no proceedings have been taken

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:30840 WP No. 48925 of 2018

¶30

place on 24.05.2015 and the filing of the written statement on that day is doubtful. Further the entire order sheet appears to be written by the same person with same pen and ink and with same stress and it also creates doubt. Moreover, the appellant No.3 was also a minor at the time of renewal agreement and signature of appellant No.1 also differs in the agreement and the document. For all these purposes the respondent requires to be confronted and mere nonexamination of the parties is not a ground to reject the request. Hence, I do not find much force in the objections filed to the application and the application is fit to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative."

¶31

The respondents' application is in effect to lead

¶32

evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short, 'the Arbitration Act' ], and the question whether such request could be allowed will have to be necessarily examined in the light of the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:30840 WP No. 48925 of 2018

¶35

Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited v. AMCI (India) Private Limited & Another - (2009) 17 SCC 796

¶36

Emkay Global Financial Services Limited v. Girdhar Sondhi - (2018) 9 SCC 49

¶37

Canara Nidhi Limited v. M. Shashikala - (2019) 19 SCC 462

¶38

As the District Court has not considered the case in the light of these decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained, and the application must be restored for reconsideration with the observation that all the questions are left open for consideration. Hence, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed in part and the District Court's order dated 10.10.2018 in A.S.No.9/2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chikkaballapura is quashed. The

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:30840 WP No. 48925 of 2018

¶43

respondents' application [IA No.5] is restored for

¶44

reconsideration as aforesaid.

¶45

The registry is directed to send back the records

¶46

forthwith.

¶47