M R Pro Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kh Aircon Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

M R PRO TECH PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.10, CMC COMPLEX, BCH ROAD, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR NISHANT DAMODHARAN RAVI.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SANJAY H. SETHIYA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

KH AIRCON SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.103, 1ST FLOOR, YAMUNA BLOCK NATIONAL GAMES HOUSING COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 047. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR RAKESH C ALSO AT NO.61/4, 4TH CROSS, 25 FEET ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, NEW EXTENSION, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 008.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. DECLYN GOMES, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24879 WP No. 11984 of 2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF OS NO.7924/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-30). SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 11.06.2020 IN OS NO.7924/2018 PASSED BY XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-30) VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

"(a) To call for the records of O.S.No.7294/2018 on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH30);

¶26

(b) To set aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2020 in O.S.No.7924/2018 passed by XXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-30) as per Annexure-A;

¶27

(c) To direct the plaintiff to produce Original Purchase Order dated 22.09.2015.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24879 WP No. 11984 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

(d) To grant costs of the proceedings; and

¶31

(e) To grant such other reliefs or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶32

Sri.Sanjay H Sethiya, learned counsel appearing for

¶33

the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed a suit for recovery of money and in the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, stating that the suit is not maintainable. During the pendency of the said application, the petitioner has also filed I.A.No.2 under Order XI Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking a direction to the respondent/plaintiff to produce the Original Purchaser Order dated 22.09.2015, on the ground that, the Purchase Order contains terms and conditions and clause No.5 of the terms and conditions indicate that any dispute between the parties shall be adjudicated by appointing an arbitrator within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka. However, the respondent has conveniently failed to produce the Purchase Order which indicates terms and conditions. Hence, it is necessary to summon the production of the purchase order

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24879 WP No. 11984 of 2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

which is in the custody of respondent to enable the Court to consider I.A.No.1/2023 filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the trial Court without appreciating this fact, rejected the application on incorrect basis. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.34,84,978/- along with interest, based on the Purchase Order dated 22.09.2015. It is submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has already produced the original purchase Order dated 22.09.2015 along with the plaint as document No.1 which is original and duly signed by the petitioner herein. The Purchase Order is also stamped and the same does not indicate any of the terms as alleged. Hence, question of asking the respondent to produce the Purchase Order dated 22.09.2015 again would not arise and the trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that there cannot be any such direction. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶39

learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24879 WP No. 11984 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

available on record and I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced.

¶43

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in

¶44

O.S.No.7924/2018 for recovery of money, based on the Purchase Order placed by the respondent/plaintiff herein. In the said suit, the petitioner entered appearance and filed I.A.No.1/2023 contending that the suit is not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause of the Purchase Order at Annexure-B. The record indicates that the said application was heard and posted for orders. In the meanwhile, petitioner filed I.A.No.2 under Order XI Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking a direction to produce the Original Purchase Order dated 22.09.2015 to assist the trial Court to decide I.A.No.1/2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The trial Court after considering the rival submission, rejected the said application. The contention of the petitioner is that the Original Purchase Order dated 22.09.2015 contains an arbitration clause. This Court has secured the original records of the trial Court and document No.1 produced by the respondent/plaintiff is the purchase order dated 22.09.2015. The said Purchase Order is

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24879 WP No. 11984 of 2020

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

on the letter head of the petitioner which is signed by an authorized person and is duly stamped. The said document produced along with the plaint does not indicate any arbitration clause. Be that as it may, whether there is an arbitration clause or not? cannot be gone into by this Court in this petition, since the original purchase order dated 22.09.2015 has already been produced before the trial Court by the respondent along with plaint, hence the question of asking production of the document would not arise. If the said document is incorrect, then it is always open for the petitioner to urge that contention before the Court.

¶48

In my considered view, the trial Court taking note of various aspects has rightly come to a conclusion that there cannot be a direction for production of documents as sought in the application. Hence, I.A.No.2 is rejected. For the aforementioned reasons. I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50