M/S Resona Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Muddasir

M/S. RESONA ESTATE PVT LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 14 AND 15, SY NO 35/2, (ZEN CITY), KONNAPPANA AGRAHARA, VILLAGE, NEAR HOSUR ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE -11, BENGALURU-560 100 REPTD BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYED HUMAYUN KHALID COMPANIES ACT-2013.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S. B. TOTAD, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MUDDASIR

¶15

S/O LATE. MOHAMMAD JABBIR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIKARIPALYA DHAKLE, MARGONDAHALLI, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN -560 100.

¶16

MOHAMMAD AMANULLA, S/O LATE. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.33, SHIKARIPALYA DHAKLE, MARGONDAHALLI, JIGANI HOBLI,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:34428 WP No. 12515 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ANEKAL TALUK,

¶21

BENGALURU URBAN-560 100.

¶22

NOORULLA, S/O LATE. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20/2, MARGONDAHALLI, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN -560 100.

¶23

SHAIK HAYATH, S/O LATE. ABDUL SAMAD, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIKARIPALYA DHAKLE, MARGONDAHALLI, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN -560 100.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR IN A C NO.384/2024 DATED 14.03.2025 ON I.A NO.II UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT TO REJECT THE CLAIM PETITION OF THE RESPONDENT PENDING BEFORE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:34428 WP No. 12515 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶33

(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other suitable Writ, order or Direction as the case may be and quash the order passed by the Sole Arbitrator in A C No. 384/2024 dated 14.03.2025 on IA No.II under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to reject the Claim petition of the Respondent pending before the Arbitral Tribunal at Annexure-G.

¶34

(ii) And allow the Application IA No.II filed by the Petitioner under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to reject the Claim Petition of the Respondent pending before the Arbitral Tribunal in A C No.384/2024 at Annexure-E.

¶35

(iii) Grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of case and allow the writ petition with cost in the interests of justice and equity.

¶36

An arbitral proceedings having been initiated by the respondents, the petitioner being the respondent in those arbitral proceedings had raised an objection in written statement as regards the maintainability of the arbitral proceedings. Subsequently, the same was followed by an application having been filed

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:34428 WP No. 12515 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to dismiss the claim petition on the ground that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to decide on the matter. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 14.03.2025. Challenging the said order of rejection, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶41

This Court has dealt with the aspect of maintainability of the writ petition on an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, being rejected vide its order dated 10.06.2026

¶42

between Smt.G.S.Sridevi and Shri.H.Mahadev Goud in WP No.10641/2026 and this Court has categorically come to a conclusion that on a conjoint reading of Sections 16, 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act makes it abundantly clear that an order rejecting a jurisdictional plea under Section 16 is not intended to be independently challenged during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:34428 WP No. 12515 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Hence, the present writ petition not being maintainable is disposed of in the following terms:

¶47

(i) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise all its disputes in the pending arbitral proceedings.

¶48

(ii) All such disputes shall be considered by the arbitrator before an award is passed.

¶49

(iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order passed under Section 16 in a proceedings under Section 34 if and so filed by the petitioner.

¶50

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶51

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

M/S Resona Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Muddasir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Resona Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Muddasir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sharath @ Sharath Kumar, Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Sharon. D. Vs the State of Karnataka

Subramanya Educational Soceity, (East-West College) Vs the Greater Bengaluru Authority (Gba)

Sri M J Raghavendra @ Raghavendra Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Dynamic Enterprises Vs Union of India

The Manager Vs v O Thippeswamy