Ms Reethika Shetty Vs Aditya N Rai — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

Ms Reethika Shetty Vs Aditya N Rai — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Court in C.M.P. No.424 of 2024 nominating a sole arbitrator contains an error apparent on the face of the record — allegedly because the Court construed the petitioner's contentions (notice regarding distribution of rental amounts and non-leasing of the ground floor) as an arbitral dispute when none existed — so as to justify review and recall of the order under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Sec. 114 CPC.

Court's answer

No error apparent on the face of the record exists in the impugned order dated 16.04.2025; the learned counsel for the review petitioner was not able to point out any such error, and accordingly the review petition fails.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition (RP No. 244 of 2025, decided 02.07.2025) filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Sec. 114 CPC by Ms. Reethika Shetty — respondent No.3 in C.M.P. No.424 of 2024 — seeking review and recall of the order dated 16.04.2025 whereby the High Court of Karnataka had allowed the CMP under Sec. 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed Hon'ble Justice Mr. A.N. Venugopal Gowda, Former Judge, as sole arbitrator. Ground urged: the Court, while passing the impugned order, construed the CMP petitioner's notice calling upon respondent No.2 to distribute rental amounts and not to lease out the ground floor as an 'arbitral dispute' although none existed, and was thereby misled, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court noted that the CMP had proceeded ex parte despite service of notice; that it had considered the registered lease agreement dated 22.12.2022, the arbitration notice dated 10.06.2024, the reply rejecting arbitration, and the pending partition-and-accounts suit O.S. No.5620 of 2024 (City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru); and that the review petitioner herself had remained unrepresented despite notice and had liberty to put forth her claim. Counsel for the review petitioner could point to no error apparent on the face of the record. Holding: no error apparent on the face of the record; Review Petition dismissed; I.A. No.2 of 2025 disposed of as not arising for consideration. (Single Judge: Ashok S. Kinagi, J.)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 16.04.2025 of this Court (High Court of Karnataka) in C.M.P. No.424 of 2024 allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and nominating/appointing a sole arbitrator (Hon'ble Justice Mr. A.N. Venugopal Gowda, Former Judge of this Hon'ble Court, per the review petitioner's prayer) under Sec. 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.¶31
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru · 16.04.2025
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 (Aditya N Rai), petitioner in the CMP, filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.424 of 2024; notice was issued to the respondents therein and served on them.¶38
Prior proceeding
Despite service of notice, the respondents in the CMP (including the present review petitioner) remained unrepresented and were placed ex parte.¶38
Prior proceeding
While passing the order under review, the Court considered the registered lease agreement dated 22.12.2022 executed between the parties to the petition.¶43
Prior proceeding
The petitioner in the CMP had issued a notice calling upon respondent No.2 (Ashwin Shetty) to distribute the rental amount collected by him and requesting the respondents not to lease out the ground floor of the building without concurrence.¶43
Prior proceeding
The petitioner in the CMP had filed a suit for partition and accounts in O.S. No.5620 of 2024 on the file of the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which was pending for consideration.¶43
Prior proceeding
The petitioner in the CMP invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice dated 10.06.2024.¶44
Prior proceeding
The respondents replied to the arbitration notice, admitting execution of the registered sale agreement but rejecting settlement of the dispute by arbitration.¶44
Prior proceeding
Considering the arbitration clause, the arbitration notice and the reply thereto, the Court allowed the CMP and nominated the sole arbitrator (Hon'ble Justice Mr. A.N. Venugopal Gowda, Former Judge, per the prayer in ¶24).¶47
Prior proceeding
The review petitioner had the liberty to put forth her claim in the CMP but, despite service of notice, remained unrepresented.¶47