Dismissed

Sattva Developers Private Limited v. Mr B R Vishwas

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024MFA/8284/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed an appeal against an interim order granting a temporary injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The Bench continued the existing orders until the Arbitrator decides pending applications and disposed of a related interlocutory application.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; interim orders and High Court order continued till Arbitrator decides pending applications; pending IA No. 2/2023 disposed.

Sattva Developers Private Limited Vs Mr B R Vishwas — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51588-DB MFA No. 8284 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8284 OF 2023 (AA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SATTVA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER, THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, SALARPURIA WINDSOR, NO. 3, 4^TH FLOOR, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED, SIGNATORY MR. ASHWIN SANCHETI.

¶11

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARUN PRADESH E, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed AND: by K G RENUKAMBA MR B R VISHWAS, Location: High AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, Court of S/O LATE B V RAJASHEKAR REDDY, Karnataka RESIDING AT # 80/85, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, NEW THARAGUPET, BENGALURU-560002.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.37(1)(c) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT.15.11.2023 PASSED IN A.A.NO.5005/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51588-DB MFA No. 8284 of 2023

¶18

ANEKAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.9 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1999. PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE / MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.11.2023 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ANEKAL IN A.A.NO.5005 OF 2023 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO NONGRANT OF PRAYER (B) IN THE APPLICATION OF ANNEXURE-B IN THE APPLICATION AMONGST OTHERS AND THEREBY GRANT THE RELIEF/S AS PRAYED THEREIN AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S THAT THE HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND NECESSARY.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶23

The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 15.11.2023 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anekal in A.A.No.5005/2023.

¶24

The learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order

¶25

has in paragraph No.21 stated as under:

¶26

“21. POINT NO.5: In view of answer on Point No.1 to 4 and for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51588-DB MFA No. 8284 of 2023

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Application filed by applicant under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1999 is partly allowed.

¶30

An order of T.I. is granted restraining the respondent from ог further alienating or further creating encumbrance over the property till appointment of an arbitrator, within prescribed time.

¶31

It is also made clear that the order is applicable only to the parties to this proceedings.

¶32

It shall not apply to the National Co Operative Bank Ltd or Tumkur Grain merchants cooperative Bank in view of the bar u/s 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶33

With these observations petition is disposed

¶34

off.

¶35

No order as to costs.”

¶36

Mr.G.L.Vishwanath, learned Senior counsel

¶37

appearing for the appellant states that, the appellant herein had filed two applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to page No.234 of the paper book. This submission of

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:51588-DB MFA No. 8284 of 2023

¶40

Mr.G.L.Vishwanath, is disputed by Mr.Srinivas V, on the ground that, the appellant has filed one IA for two reliefs

¶41

Be that as it may, it is the conceded position that, the learned Sessions Judge while considering the application(s) has granted part of the relief as sought by the appellant in paragraph No.21, which we have reproduced above.

¶42

Mr.G.L.Vishwanath states that, the learned Sessions Judge has effectively rejected the prayer of the appellant not to change the nature and character of the suit schedule property.

¶43

During the course of the hearing, our attention has been drawn to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case OF B.R.VISHWAS VS. SATTVA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., in SLP (C) DIARY NO.23475/2024 , which is an SLP filed by the respondent herein against the order passed by this Court dated 20.12.2023 in I.A.No.1/2023, whereby this Court has directed the issuance of temporary injunction as sought for in relation to the properties depicted therein.

¶44

The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as under:

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:51588-DB MFA No. 8284 of 2023

¶47

“Delay condoned.

¶48

Learned senior Advocate appearing

¶49

for the petitioner states that the matter was referred to the learned Arbitrator after the district court had partly allowed the application(s) filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid position, the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have entertained the appeal and should have relegated the parties to the Arbitrator for appropriate orders. The learned Senior Advocate further submits that the impugned order does not take into account the required three principles of law while granting an interim relief- a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury or loss, and also does not refer to the facts.

¶50

We have recorded the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, without making any comment, as these are issues which should have been gone into at the first instance by the Division Bench of the High Court. We request the Division

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51588-DB MFA No. 8284 of 2023

¶52

Bench to take the same into consideration and pass appropriate orders in the pending appeal, that is, MFA No.8284/2023.

¶53

We clarify that we have not made any comment on the merits or the commented on the order that may be passed.

¶54

Recording the aforesaid, the special

¶55

leave petition is dismissed.

¶56

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

¶57

During the course of hearing, Mr.G.L.Vishwanath, also state that, the appellant herein has filed two applications before the learned Arbitrator, who is seized of the dispute between the parties and the said applications are pending consideration. The said applications have not been heard and decided because of the pendency of this appeal and also the respondent herein had filed an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is stated, the application under Section 16 has been dismissed by the

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:51588-DB MFA No. 8284 of 2023

¶59

learned Arbitrator and no challenge has been made by the respondent to that order.

¶60

Mr.Srinivas V states that, appropriate shall be that, the present proceedings be closed and the parties be relegated to the learned Arbitrator for a decision on the two applications filed by the appellant under Section 17 of the Act, by continuing the interim order which was passed by the Sessions Judge and also this Court on 20.12.2023, till a decision on the two applications.

¶61

Mr. G.L. Viswanath is agreeable to the submission made. If that be so, we continue the order dated 15.11.2023 of the learned Sessions Judge and the order passed by this Court on 20.12.2023 till such time the learned Arbitrator decides the applications filed by the appellant under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶62

In view of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for he parties states that the appeal be disposed of, as such. It is ordered accordingly.

¶63

It is made clear that, the learned Arbitrator shall decide the applications without being influenced by any

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:51588-DB MFA No. 8284 of 2023

¶66

observations made by the learned Sessions Judge and this Court.

¶67

Pending I.A.No.2/2023 do not survive for

¶68

consideration and stands disposed of.

¶69

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

¶70

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶71

SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sattva Developers Private Limited v. Mr B R Vishwas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sattva Developers Private Limited v. Mr B R Vishwas

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

The Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S Givaudan India Pvt. Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-3, Vs M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Ltd.

The Pr Commissioner of Income TAX-3 Vs M/S Gmr Highwys Ltd.

Mirza Iibne Ali Vs Union Bank of India

Smt. Sandhya Chavan Vs M/S Lalkar Securities Pvt. Ltd.

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Hemavathy Power and Light Pvt. Ltd.