Disposed

Nikhil v. Jadhav v H.K. Chanchala Devi

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024WP/18279/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an arbitration award upon the parties filing a joint memo acknowledging a settled dispute and a Memorandum of Settlement. The court accepted submissions that the dispute was fully resolved, thus rendering the petition unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and pending intersecting applications were disposed of in terms of the filed Memorandum of Settlement acknowledging the settlement of the dispute.

Nikhil v. Jadhav Vs H.K. Chanchala Devi — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44486 WP No. 18279 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 18279 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NIKHIL V. JADHAV S/O SRI V D JADHAV AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.289, DOMLUR 1^ST STAGE AMAR JYOTH ILAYOUT BENGALURU-560071

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRADYUMNA K.V. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

H.K. CHANCHALA DEVI W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.420/422, 3^RD BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560043

¶15

M/S AKRUTI DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.289, AMAR JYOTHI LAYOUT, DOMLUR WEST BENGALURU-560071 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

¶16

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:44486 WP No. 18279 of 2022

¶19

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE WARD 88 MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU-560040

¶20

HONBLE JUSTICE (RETD) V GOPALA GOWDA SOLE ARBITRATOR ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. FREUD RICHARDSON., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD DTD 19.11.2018 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R5 ARBITRATOR IN AC NO.164/2017 AND ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

¶28

a. Set aside the award dated 18.11.2018 (AnnexureA) passed by the 5^th Respondent-Arbitrator in AC No. 164/2017.

¶29

b. Declare that the award dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure-A) passed by the 5^th RespondentArbitrator in AC No. 164/2017 is void, non-est and not binding on the Petitioner and the petition schedule property and consequently, direct the Respondents not to take any steps against the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:44486 WP No. 18279 of 2022

¶32

Petitioner to enforce award dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure-A) passed by the 5^th RespondentArbitrator in AC No. 164/2017 and the petition schedule property.

¶33

c. Set aside the order dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure-J) passed by the LXXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-84) in COM. AS.244/2018,

¶34

d. Declare that the actions of the Respondents interfering with peaceful possession of the Schedule Properties are wholly arbitrary, high handed and illegal.

¶35

e. Grant costs of these proceedings.

¶36

f. Pass such other orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

¶37

The joint memo dated 3.9.2024 has been filed, which

¶38

reads as under:

¶39

JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO. 1 & 2

¶40

The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 & 2 above named respectfully submit as follows:

¶41

1. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking setting aside of the Award dated 19.11.2018 passed by Respondent No.5 in A.C. No.164/2017 (Annexure-A). The said Award has also been challenged by Respondent No.2 in COMAP No.453/2022 before this Hon'ble Court.

¶42

2. During the pendency of these proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute and have executed a Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.08.2024. A copy thereof is produced herewith as Document No. 1.

¶43

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44486 WP No. 18279 of 2022

¶44

3. In terms of the settlement, certain sums of money have been agreed to be paid in full and final satisfaction. Respondent No.1 has agreed to convey 25% of the built-up area in the JDA Property to the Petitioner and also confirms the remaining 75% of the built-up area as the property belonging to Respondent No.2.

¶45

4. In terms thereof, Respondent No.1 has executed thirty registered Sale Deeds in favour of Respondent No.2 and one Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner. The parties have also agreed that Respondent No.1 will have no objection for the setting aside of the Award dated 19.11.2018 passed by Respondent No.5 and the judgment dated 06.09.2022 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Comm. A.S. No.244/2018 (Annexure-J), which is challenged in this writ petition.

¶46

5. In view of the above, the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 & 2 are filing this joint memo to place on record the Memorandum of Settlement.

¶47

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement by setting aside the Award dated 19.11.2018 passed by Respondent No.5 (Annexure-A) and the judgment dated 06.09.2022 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Comm. A.S. No.244/2018 (Annexure-J), in the interest of justice.

¶48

Subsequently, vide memo dated 25.9.2024 the memorandum of settlement dated 14.8.2024 has also been produced.

¶49

Both the counsel for the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 submit that all the terms and conditions agreed upon between the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2

¶50

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44486 WP No. 18279 of 2022

¶51

have been complied with by each of the parties and as such the above petition does not survive for

¶52

consideration.

¶53

Accepting the said submission, the petition stands

¶54

disposed o f in terms of the said joint memo.

¶55

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending IA's does not survive for consideration. Hence, IA stands disposed of.

¶56

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶57

¶58

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5

Nikhil v. Jadhav v H.K. Chanchala Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil v. Jadhav v H.K. Chanchala Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Joseph Johnson Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karishma Praveen K @ Karishma K Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishnu School of Nursing Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnan Nayar Veliyath Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri. Narendra Kumar S B Vs the Additional Registrar of Co. Operative Societes (R 441)

Sri. v. R. Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka