Disposed¶40

M Manjunatha Reddy v. M/S Indsing Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2025MFA/932/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), MFA No. 932 of 2015, decided 23-01-2025 by Justice K.Natarajan. Section 37(1)(b) appeal against dismissal of Section 34 petition challenging arbitration award dated 20.10.2010 (arbitrator G. Raghavendra Rao). Appeal disposed on joint compromise (Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w s.151 CPC); award set aside; 3 acres in Sy.Nos.33/2 and 33/3 to Trendsquare Infra LLP for joint development; Indsing Developers to withdraw W.P.No.19315/2023.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of the joint compromise; arbitration award dated 20.10.2010 set aside; respondent No.1 to withdraw W.P.No.19315/2023. ¶40

M Manjunatha Reddy Vs M/S Indsing Developers Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of in terms of the joint compromise; arbitration award dated 20.10.2010 set aside; respondent No.1 to withdraw W.P.No.19315/2023.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal should be disposed of in terms of the joint compromise application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with section 151 of CPC during its pendency. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

In view of the settlement between the parties, the appeal is disposed of in the terms of the compromise.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

In view of the settlement between the parties, the award passed in the arbitration dated 20.10.2010 by the arbitrator, respondent No.2, is hereby set aside.

¶42

Key takeaways

As per the compromise, the appellants undertook to give 3 acres of land (schedule 'A' and 'B', item Nos.1 and 2: 11 guntas in Sy.No.33/2 and 2 acres 29 guntas in Sy.No.33/3) for joint development by a third-party developer.ratio¶36
The appellants shall give the land of 3 acres to Trendsquare Infra LLP for developing the land on fresh terms.ratio¶36
After development the appellants will get their share, and the parties are to finalise the terms and execute the deed within 45 days.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No. 932 of 2015 (AA) under S.37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by M. Manjunatha Reddy and M. Srinivasa Reddy against the order dated 19.12.2014 in A.S.No.1/2011 (Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District) dismissing their Section 34 challenge to the arbitral award dated 20.10.2010 passed by G. Raghavendra Rao (respondent No.2), arising out of a joint development agreement with M/s Indsing Developers Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.1) over 8 acres 37 guntas in Sy.Nos.33/1, 33/2 and 33/3, Chikkabellandur Village, Varthur Hobli. During pendency the parties filed a joint compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC: the appellants to give 3 acres (11 guntas in Sy.No.33/2 and 2 acres 29 guntas in Sy.No.33/3) to Trendsquare Infra LLP for joint development on fresh terms, with the appellants' share and execution of the deed within 45 days. Held: appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise; the award dated 20.10.2010 set aside; respondent No.1 to withdraw W.P.No.19315/2023.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:2973 MFA No. 932 of 2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2015 (AA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M. MANJUNATHA REDDY S/O K. MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶9

M. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O K. MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING OF CHIKKABELLANDUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶11

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. A.M. SURESH REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

AND:

¶15

M/S INDSING DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, HAVING OFFICE PRESENTLY AT NO.208, WEST MINISTER, NO.13, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:2973 MFA No. 932 of 2015

¶18

BANGALORE - 560 052. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶19

(i) SRI. M.KRISHNA, S/O.LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.

¶20

(ii) SMT. PADMAVATHI KRISHNA WIFE OF SRI. M. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶21

G. RAGHAVENDRA RAO

¶22

RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NO.18, 2^ND CROSS, JUDICIAL OFFICERS LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K V & ASSTS., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE ORDER DATED:05/06/18 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 37(1)(b) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:19.12.2014 IN A.S NO. 1/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALORE RURUAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED U/S 34 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2973 MFA No. 932 of 2015

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 37(1)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act for setting aside the order dated 19.12.2014 in A.S.No.1/2011 on the file of Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore dismissing the suit filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The district judge dismissed the suit of the appellant. Hence, they are before this court.

¶31

During the pendency of the appeal, both appellant Nos.1 and 2 and representative of respondent No.1 are present and both filed Joint Compromise Application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with section 151 of CPC. The gist of the complainant is that previously there was joint development agreement between plaintiff appellant and the respondent No.1, for developing land of 8 acre 37 guntas in Sy.No.33/1, 33/2 and 33/3 situated at Chikkabellandur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk and due to the dispute, the matter was referred to the Arbitration and the award has been passed which was challenged before the District Judge under Section

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:2973 MFA No. 932 of 2015

¶34

34 of the Arbitration and conciliation act, which came to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appellants are before this court.

¶35

The said dispute has been settled between the parties

¶36

and that the appellant undertook to give 3 acres of land i.e., schedule 'A' and 'B' mentioned in the application item Nos.1 and 2 in schedule property i.e., 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.33/2 and 2 acres and 29 guntas of land in Sy.No.33/3 and total of 3 aces of land and they have given to the 3^rd party developer for the purpose of joint development as per the terms, of the agreement. The appellant shall give the land of 3 acres to the Trendsquare Infra LLP for developing the land on fresh terms and after the development, the appellant will get their share and within 45 days they will finalise the terms and execute the deed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the 3^rd party developer will also develop 3 acres of land given by the appellants and also other lands belonging to respondent No.1.

¶37

The submission of learned counsel and the parties are placed on record.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:2973 MFA No. 932 of 2015

¶40

In view of the settlement, the appeal is disposed of

¶41

in the terms of the compromise which is part and parcel of the suit.

¶42

Also, in view of the settlement between the parties, the award passed in the arbitration dated 20.10.2010 by the arbitrator, respondent No.2 is hereby set a side.

¶43

Respondent No.1 said to have filed writ petition in W.P.No.19315/2023 and they undertake to withdraw the writ petition filed against the appellant.

¶44

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶45

AKV List No.: 5 Sl No.: 2 CT:SK

M Manjunatha Reddy v. M/S Indsing Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Manjunatha Reddy v. M/S Indsing Developers Pvt. Ltd.

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

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri. Kempanna

Rajendra Kumar S v @ Bannajje Raja Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Jalamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nipun Gupta Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Varishtha Property Developers Private Limited Vs M/S Fern Valley Projects Private Limited

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Vs Smt. Malini