Mr Hashim Yusuf Sait Vs Mr Mohammed Mustafa Tousif

J.M. ASSOCIATES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE NO.3/1 LANGFORD ROAD/LANGFORD GRADEN WARD NO.76, RICHMOND TOWN BANGALORE-560 025 REP. BY MR. MOHAMMED MERAJ.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADV.,)

¶17

AND:

¶18

MR. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA TOUSIF S/O MR. CHAND BASHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 83/10/11/14

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:45611-DB M.F.A. No.7202/2024 C/W M.F.A. No.7211/2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

1ST MAIN ROAD, J.C. ROAD K.P.N. NEW EXTENSION BENGALURU-560 002.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SMT. S. AISHWARYA, ADV., FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV., FOR C/R)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 371(b) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN A.A.29/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO.27) AT BANGALORE. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO.27) AT BANGALORE IN A.A.29/2024 & ETC.

¶26

IN M.F.A. NO.7211/2024:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

MR. HASHIM YUSUF SAIT S/O LATE MOHAMMED YUSUF SAIT AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.23 ANNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD ULSOOR, BANGALORE 560042.

¶29

J.M. ASSOCIATES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE 3/1, LANFORD ROAD LANGFORD GARDEN, WARD NO.76 RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE 560025 REPRESENTED BY MR. MOHAMMED MERAJ.

¶30

...APPELLANTS

¶31

(BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADV.,)

¶32

AND:

¶33

MR. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA TOUSIF S/O MR. CHAND BASHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 83/10/11/14

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45611-DB M.F.A. No.7202/2024 C/W M.F.A. No.7211/2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

1ST MAIN ROAD, J C ROAD K P N NEW EXTENSION BENGALURU 560 002.

¶37

...RESPONDENT

¶38

(BY SMT. S. AISHWARYA, ADV., FOR

¶39

SRI. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV., FOR C/R)

¶40

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.37(1)(b) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN A.A.28/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO.27) AT BANGALORE. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO.27) AT BANGALORE IN A.A.28/2024 & ETC.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

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

¶45

MFA.No.7202/2024 is preferred against the order

¶46

dated 05.09.2024 in A.A.No.29/2024 and

¶47

MFA.No.7211/2024 is preferred against the order dated 05.09.2024 in A.A.No.28/2024 of the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-27), Bengaluru. The main ground of challenge raised in these appeals are that the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-27), Bengaluru Court was not the competent Court with

¶48

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45611-DB M.F.A. No.7202/2024 C/W M.F.A. No.7211/2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

jurisdiction to consider the application filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act'). It is submitted that the dispute between the parties was a commercial dispute and the Section 9 of application had been preferred by the appellants herein before the Commercial Court and interim protection had been granted by the said Court. It is therefore, submitted that the present orders passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act on an application preferred by the respondent without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

¶52

submits that the orders passed by the Court only restrained the parties from alienating or encumbering the application item No.2 property in favour of any third parties for a period of 90 days or until the commencement of the arbitration proceedings before the arbitral tribunal, whichever is earlier. It is submitted that the arbitral tribunal has been constituted on 06.11.2025 and has

¶53

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45611-DB M.F.A. No.7202/2024 C/W M.F.A. No.7211/2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

already issued notice to the parties and is proceeding with the arbitration. It is submitted that therefore, nothing survives for consideration in these appeals since these appeals have been rendered infructuous.

¶56

We have considered the contentions advanced.

¶57

We notice that the orders under these appeals are passed on 05.09.2024 and are confined to 90 days from the date of the order or until the commencement of the arbitration proceedings whichever is earlier. In view of the fact that 90 days have long elapsed the CMP Nos.530/2024, 554/2024, 555/2024 has been allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 24.10.2025 and the sole arbitrator has been appointed and the arbitrator has issued notice to the parties and is proceeding with the arbitration proceedings, we are of the opinion that the legal issues raised do not survive for consideration.

¶58