Dismissed¶39

M/S Orange Self Storage Private Limited v. Sri. Abhayaraj Shetty

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2025COMAP/179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of a commercial appeal (COMAP) under S.37(1)(b), Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, against dismissal of a S.9 interim-relief application where arbitration has commenced and a S.17 application is pending before the arbitrator - appeal held not maintainable and dismissed; arbitrator to decide S.17 application on merits, contentions left open. Keywords: Section 9; Section 17; Section 37(1)(b); Section 13(1)(a) Commercial Courts Act 2015; Orange Self Storage Pvt Ltd; Abhayaraj Shetty; Com.A.A. No. 571/2022; Commercial Division Bengaluru; order dated 14.03.2024.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; appeal dismissed. The learned arbitrator is to consider the Section 17 application on its merits, with all contentions of the parties left open. ¶39

M/S Orange Self Storage Private Limited Vs Sri. Abhayaraj Shetty — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40554-DB COMAP No. 179 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. ORANGE SELF STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 107, ANDREW BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. GANAPATHI MALA JOSHY.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI. ABHAYARAJ SHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE B. RAMANATH SHETTY, RESIDING AT 'PRAKRUTI', RAGHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 061.

¶15

SRI. SANJAY SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE B. RAMANATH SHETTY,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:40554-DB COMAP No. 179 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

RESIDING AT 'PRAKRUTI', RAGHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 061.

¶20

SMT. JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O. LATE B. RAMANATH SHETTY, RESIDING AT 'PRAKRUTI', RAGHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 061.

¶21

SMT. BHARATHI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, D/O. LATE B. RAMANATH SHETTY, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 301, SALAPURIA ARISTOCRACY, NO.76, 14TH CROSS, BEHIND SIDOOR CONVENTION CENTER, J. P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 UNDER SECTION 37(1)(B) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO (A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HONBLE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH 84), (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN COM.A.A. NO. 571/2022 AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:40554-DB COMAP No. 179 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶33

This appeal is filed against an order dismissing

¶34

Section 9 application preferred by the appellant herein. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that arbitration has commenced and the very same request is made by the appellant by filing an application before the Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶35

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that observations have been made by the Court while dismissing the Section 9 application and that the appellant will be prejudiced in its application before the arbitrator due to the said findings.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40554-DB COMAP No. 179 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

4. Having considered the contentions advanced,

¶39

we are of the opinion that in view of the fact that Arbitration has commenced and that the appellant has already approached the Arbitrator an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, this appeal is not maintainable. The appeal therefore fails, the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned arbitrator shall consider the application on its merits and all contentions of the parties are left open.

¶40

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶41

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶42

RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

M/S Orange Self Storage Private Limited v. Sri. Abhayaraj Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Orange Self Storage Private Limited v. Sri. Abhayaraj Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ex Mwo Ashok Kumar Iaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a S Satish Kumar Vs the State of Karnatka

Smt Nazhath Jabeen Vs Sri Jagadeesh G IAS

The Bangalore Developement Authority Vs K Srinivas Murthy

Sri. Mahadeva Vs Smt. Rukmini

Sheetalkumar Manere Vs Directorate of Enforcement