M/S Smm Silk Reeling Industry (Arm) Vs Mrs Afshana Parveen — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

M/S Smm Silk Reeling Industry (Arm) Vs Mrs Afshana Parveen — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of at admission stage without being entertained and without setting aside the ad-interim injunction; appellants left free to raise all contentions before the Commercial Court, which was requested to decide the application expeditiously. Pending application stands disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the present appeal should be entertained against an ad-interim Section 9 injunction order when the Commercial Court has not yet disposed of the underlying application. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the impugned order is merely ad-interim and the Commercial Court has not disposed of the Section 9 application, the Division Bench did not consider it apposite to entertain the appeal.

Key takeaways

The Commercial Court was requested to dispose of the Section 9 application expeditiously, and it is open to the appellants to raise all contentions before the learned Commercial Court.obiter¶3
The Court noted that the respondent-applicant has taken no steps to commence arbitral proceedings under Section 21 of the A&C Act and directed the learned Commercial Court to take note of the same, including in the context of Section 9(2) of the A&C Act.obiter¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 37(1)(b) r/w Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – appeal by partners/partnership firm against ex parte ad-interim Section 9 order (restraining them from encumbering or alienating scheduled property) passed by the Designated Commercial Court, Ramanagara in I.A.No.1 in A.A.No.1/2025 – impugned order is ad-interim and the Section 9 application remains undisposed before the Commercial Court – High Court declined to entertain the appeal and disposed of it; Commercial Court requested to dispose of the application expeditiously with liberty to appellants to raise all contentions; Court noted the respondent had not commenced arbitral proceedings under Section 21 and asked the Commercial Court to take note thereof, including in the context of Section 9(2) of the A&C Act.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6783-DB COMAP No. 336 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 336 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

M/s. SMM SILK REELING INDUSTRY (ARM) A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF

Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

BUSINESS AT NO.3398, KUMANDAN MOHALLA RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SYED MOHAMMED MASEEH ULLA)

MR. SYED MOHAMMED MASEEH ULLA S/O. MR. SYED SHAFIULLA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O. NO.3398, KUMANDAN MOHALLA RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159

MR. SYED SHAFIULLA S/O. LATE SYED RAHAMAN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O. NO.3398, KUMANDAN MOHALLA

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6783-DB COMAP No. 336 of 2025

HC-KAR

RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159

MRS. NOOR FATHIMA W/O. MR. SYED SHAFIULLA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O. NO.3398 KUMANDAN MOHALLA RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI SUMATHI PAULINE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS. AFSHANA PARVEEN D/O MR. AFSAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.5 NO.1690, 3^RD STAGE RAJIV NAGAR MYSORE - 570 019

…RESPONDENT

(BY MS. SHRAVANI REDDY Y.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABDUL RAZAK, ADVOCATE)

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 READ WITH SECTION 37 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT READ WITH ORDER 43 RULE (1) AND SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 02.05.2025 PASSED BY HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL COURT) RAMANAGARA IN COM.A.A.1/2025 & ETC.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6783-DB COMAP No. 336 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [ A&C ] r/w Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, impugning the order dated 02.06.2005, passed by the learned Commercial Court in I.A.No.1 in A.A.No.1/2025. The respondent had filed the said application (AA.No.1/2025) under Section 9 of the A&C Act seeking interim measures of protection. The learned Commercial Court had restricted the appellants from encumbering or alienating the scheduled property till further orders.

It is apparent from the impugned order that it is an ad-interim order. The learned Commercial Court has not disposed of the application (AA.1/2025) as yet.

In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the present appeal. However, we request the learned

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6783-DB COMAP No. 336 of 2025

HC-KAR

Commercial Court to dispose of the application expeditiously. Needless to state that it is open for the appellants to raise all contentions before the learned Commercial Court.

This Court is also informed that the respondent, who is the applicant before the learned Commercial Court, has not taken any steps for commencing the arbitral proceedings in terms of Section 21 of the A&C Act. The learned Commercial Court shall also take note of the same, including in the context of Section 9(2) of the A&C Act.

Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of.

Pending application stands disposed of.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10