Allowed

M/S Naveena Granites v. M/S Mysore Minerals Limited

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024WP/5757/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ challenge to a District Judge's order dismissing a Section 34 Arbitration Act petition for want of prosecution. The High Court quashed the dismissal, restored the petition subject to costs of Rs.15,000 to the respondent, and directed expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.07.2022 quashed; AS No.7/2007 restored, subject to Rs.15,000 payable to respondent; trial court to dispose within two months.

M/S Naveena Granites Vs M/S Mysore Minerals Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:40823 WP No. 5757 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S NAVEENA GRANITES PARTNERSHIP FIRM INCORPORATED U/S 58(1) OF INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 THILAGAVATHI ILLAM 5-A SOUTH RAILWAY ROAD, DHARMAPURI, TAMIL NADU-636703 AT PRESENT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR P K POUNRAJ.

¶9

M/S SATHYA GRANITES NO.176, RAJA RAO STREET KANAKAPURA-562117 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI P K POUNRAJ

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

BOTH PETITIONERS AUTHORIZED SRI KANNAN, MANAGER TO FILE THIS PETITION.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN N K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

M/S MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER TRAINING NO.39, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PRESENT ADDRESS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:40823 WP No. 5757 of 2023

¶18

BMTC BUS STAND, 5TH FLOOR, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶19

SRI MAHENDRA JAIN IAS ARBITRATOR CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S MYSORE MINERALS LTD BANGALORE-01.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. LAKSHMEESH RAO G., ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DT. 01.08.2024, NOTICE TO R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN AS NO.7/2007 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURT BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned District Judge, wherein the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶27

The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, before the District Judge, challenging the arbitral award passed by the sole arbitrator.

¶28

When the matter was listed for arguments by the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner failed to appear on the scheduled date. Consequently, the learned District Judge, left with no option, dismissed the petition for want of prosecution.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:40823 WP No. 5757 of 2023

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition, arguing that it is not maintainable as the petitioner failed to exhaust the remedy available under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

The petition was filed on 16.01.2007, and despite several opportunities being granted, the petitioner, without any sufficient cause, failed to address arguments. The learned District Judge, therefore, rightly dismissed the petition for want of prosecution.

¶34

The petitioner challenged the termination of the arbitration proceedings, alleging that the petitioner failed to appear before the arbitrator on multiple occasions. The petitioner claims certain amounts under the contract, which was terminated due to an alleged breach of contract. If the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not restored, the petitioner would suffer significant hardship. On the contrary, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petition is restored to its original position.

¶35

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

i) The petition is allowed.

¶38

ii) The impugned order dated 07.07.2022, passed by the learned II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, City Civil Court, Bengaluru, at Annexure-A, is

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:40823 WP No. 5757 of 2023

¶41

hereby quashed, and the petition in AS No.7/2007 is restored to its original file.

¶42

iii) This order is subject to the payment of Rs. 15,000/- to be made to the respondent on or before the next date of hearing.

¶43

iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 21.10.2024 without waiting for further notice from the Trial Court.

¶44

v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the petition within two months from thereafter.

¶45

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶46

M/S Naveena Granites v. M/S Mysore Minerals Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Naveena Granites v. M/S Mysore Minerals Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakepoint Builders Private Limited Vs Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Nanjundaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Century Drums and Barrels Industry Vs the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Smt Nainamol Vs Union of India

Mrs Kanika Masand Vs State of Karnataka

Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka by