Disposed

Mahaveer P v. Mr G Suraj Kumar @ G Suraj

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023WP/6045/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the civil court order rejecting a Section 8 application. The High Court found partial arbitrability regarding Schedule-C property but noted no agreement covering Schedule-B property or the vehicle, leaving the matter disposed with observations.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with observations; application for arbitration on Schedule-C property noted as potentially arbitrable, while other claims deemed not covered.

Mahaveer P Vs Mr G Suraj Kumar @ G Suraj — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:41448 WP No. 6045 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6045 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAHAVEER P SON OF PARASMAL JAIN NO.3/5-002, N.N. PLAZA, VANI VILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU 560 004.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUNIL S RAO.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR G SURAJ KUMAR @ G SURAJ SON OF GAUTHAM CHAND AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.21, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, BAZAR STREET, GAUTHAMAPURAM, ULSOOR, BENGALURU 560 008.

¶13

SMT. D. ANURADHA W/O MAHAVEER P PROPRIETRIX, RISHAB INVESTMENTS, NO.3/15-002, N.N PLAZA, VANI VILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU 560 004.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI HARISH O K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:41448 WP No. 6045 of 2019

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGND ORDER DATED 25.8.2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION IA NO.3 FILED UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILATION ACT BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.5991/2017 ON THE FILE OF LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CCH-69 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is by the first defendant in O.S.No.5991/2017 on the file of the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, ‘the civil Court’ ]. The petitioner has impugned the civil Court’s order dated 25.08.2018, and the civil Court by this order has rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short, ‘the Arbitration Act’ ]. The civil Court has assigned the following reasons to

¶22

reject the application.

¶23

“7[a] Whereas, the alleged agreement on which the 1^st defendant has relied on pertains to an agreement of sale allegedly entered into between the plaintiff and his brother with the 1^st defendant in respect of ‘C’ schedule

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:41448 WP No. 6045 of 2019

¶26

property. In this context, in my opinion, the above said reliefs sought by the plaintiff cannot be stated to be a subject matter of the alleged Sale Agreement. Because the plaintiff has no where claimed any relief in respect of ‘C’ schedule property, but he has sought for the relief that the Sale Deed in respect of ‘C’ schedule property, which is alleged to be in possession of the defendants be not misused.

¶27

[b] That apart, it is to be seen from the above said relief sought by the plaintiff that, the plaintiff has sought three independent reliefs against defendant Nos.1 and 2. Such, being the case, the question of splitting one of the relief and referring the same to an Arbitrator as sought for by the 1^st defendant cannot be accepted. Hence, in my opinion, the above said application filed on behalf of defendant No.1 is devoid of merits and as such needs to be rejected. Accordingly, I hold the above point in the NEGATIVE.”

¶28

The first respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.5991/2017 for permanent injunction against

¶29

the petitioner and the second respondent from misusing the custody of the original sale deeds relating to the Schedule-B and C properties and for mandatory injunction to return the original sale deeds and certain signed blank cheques as also smart card for Innova car bearing No. KA 03 MR 7103.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:41448 WP No. 6045 of 2019

¶32

The first respondent has asserted

¶33

that he has obtained loan from the petitioner and the second respondent, and as security for the loan, he had deposited the registration certificate viz., smart card for the Innova car along with certain blank cheques; that he has cleared the loan, but the petitioner and the second respondent have not returned the blank cheques. The first respondent has also asserted that by oversight, the original sale deeds relating to Schedule-B and C properties were left behind in the petitioner’s office when he had visited the petitioner for documentation as regards the closure of hypothecation and there is possibility of the petitioner and the second respondent misusing these documents to his detriment.

¶34

The petitioner has filed the

¶35

application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act asserting that the first respondent has entered into Agreement to Sale dated 01.09.2015 along with his

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:41448 WP No. 6045 of 2019

¶38

brother, Sri G Deepak Kumar Jain, agreeing to transfer the Schedule-C property for total consideration of Rs.80 lakhs acknowledging receipt of Rs.45 lakhs. The petitioner and the first respondent [ his brother ] have agreed that all disputes between the parties must be settled by arbitration, and as such, the suit must be disposed of referring the parties to arbitration proceedings.

¶39

Sri Sunil S Rao, the learned counsel

¶40

for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner has no interest in either the Innova vehicle or the Schedule-B property and if any interest can be asserted in these properties, it would only be the second respondent – his wife and the proprietary concern of his wife but the suit is filed including the petitioner and Schedule-C property to avoid the Agreement to Sale dated 01.09.2015. The learned counsel submits that the questions raised in the suit would be a dispute relating to the corresponding

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:41448 WP No. 6045 of 2019

¶43

rights under the Agreement to Sale and as such, the parties must necessarily work out their remedies in the arbitration proceedings.

¶44

However, Sri Sunil S Rao cannot

¶45

dispute that the first respondent’s claims insofar as the schedule-B property or Innova car or any documents submitted during the transaction relating to these properties are not covered under any agreement for arbitration with the petitioner, or even with the second respondent; in which event, this Court must opine that the reasons assigned by the civil Court are unexceptional and must prevail. This Court must observe that the petitioner must be at liberty to pursue the remedies that may be available under the Agreement to Sale dated 01.09.2015 against the first respondent and his brother, and if any proceedings are so commenced for arbitration, the petitioner could explain the delay, if any, relying upon the proceedings leading up to this petition.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:41448 WP No. 6045 of 2019

¶48

This Court must also observe that it should be open to the petitioner to contend that the first respondent

¶49

will not be entitled to any adjudication insofar as the

¶50

Schedule-C property in the present proceedings.

¶51

The petition therefore stands disposed of with

¶52

the observations as aforesaid.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

AN/-

Mahaveer P v. Mr G Suraj Kumar @ G Suraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer P v. Mr G Suraj Kumar @ G Suraj

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

M/S Balaji Enterprises Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Sri. Shankar a Kunder Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Doddathimmappa

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Harmeet Singh

Sri P Pichanna Vs M/S Cateleya Projects

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Synclus India Logistics Private Ltd.