Satchmo Holdings Limited Vs Bangalore Baptist Church Trust

SATCHMO HOLDINGS LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NEL HOLDINGS SOUTH LTD.) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: #110, A WING, ANDREWS BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT - LEGAL AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI SREENATH VK

¶10

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI S S NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGESH MORO, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

BANGALORE BAPTIST CHURCH TRUST A REGISTERED TRUST HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT NO.97L NEW NO.1 COMMISSARIAT ROAD BENGALURU-560035 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS TRUSTEE MR. CHARLES ISAAC

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:9015-DB WP No. 3197 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.11.2025 PASSED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR (ANNEXURE-K1) IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF CMP NO.227/2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS (ANNEXURES-G AND H) AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶24

The petitioner-Company, formerly known as 'Nitesh Estates Limited' and the respondent, a Public Charitable Trust, have entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 27.06.2012 for developing the property bearing new PID Nos.76-8-7, 76-8-8, 76-8-9, 76-8-8/2, 76-8-8/3, 76-8-7/1 and 76-8-7/2 and 76-8-11 (Old Nos.97 and 12) situated at Commissariat Road, Bengaluru, admeasuring approximately 89,300 square feet together with the buildings and structures standing thereon. The respondent-Trust had issued a notice to the petitioner dated 08.09.2020 unilaterally terminating the

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:9015-DB WP No. 3197 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

JDA and revoking the Power of Attorney alleging inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner.

¶29

The parties are in arbitral proceedings arising out of CMP No.227/2020 before the Sole Arbitrator, Hon'ble Justice A.V.Chandrashekar (retired Judge of the High Court of Karnataka).

¶30

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 24.11.2025, whereby the Arbitral Tribunal has dismissed the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to recall the order dated 25.09.2023 closing the claimant/respondent's evidence and consequently for reopening of the matter for the purpose of further cross-examination C.W.1.

¶31

The writ petition against an interlocutory order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is not maintainable. We should have dismissed the writ petition on that ground alone. Even otherwise, on merits, it would be relevant to make reference to the fact that the evidence of the claimant was closed on

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9015-DB WP No. 3197 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

25.09.2023 and the application to recall the witness-C.W.1

¶35

came to be filed in November 2025 i.e., after more than two years. We do not see any justification for filing the application after a delay of two years from the date when the claimant's evidence was closed.

¶36

[5. One of the primary objective of the arbitral proceedings is to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. The strict rule of evidence and procedure is not applicable in arbitral proceedings. When we have put to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as to why the application was filed to recall the witness-C.W.1 for further cross-examination, he has submitted that the judicial proceedings in O.S.No.7515/2023 and RFA No.1559/2024 would directly impact the outcome of the arbitral proceedings and the same should be put to the witness.

¶37

We are of the considered view that there is no requirement to put it to the witness about the pending judicial proceedings and the order/decree passed therein. The Court's record can always be filed which does not require a formal admission by the witness. We are, therefore, of the opinion that

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:9015-DB WP No. 3197 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the present writ petition does not have any merit and substance, and it is not maintainable. Thus, we dismiss the writ petition, however, without costs.

¶42

In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of.

¶43

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶45

BKV

¶46

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Satchmo Holdings Limited v. Bangalore Baptist Church Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satchmo Holdings Limited v. Bangalore Baptist Church Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner for Vs Smt. Nazhath Jabeen

Zeenath Begum @ Zeenathunnisa Vs Sri Krishnoji Rao

Uday R Devadiga Vs Smt Kamala

Smt Geetha Devi Vs Syed Basheer Ahmed @ Alla Bhakas

Usha Vs M Velu

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Rathna