Sri. H.Jayarama Reddy v. M/S. Radient Structures Private Limited

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2026WP/38572/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 38572 of 2025 (GM-RES); Article 227 certiorari against Arbitral Tribunal order on admissibility/sufficiency of stamping of MoU dated 23.12.2013; objection that MoU not sufficiently stamped; Tribunal held document admissible and sufficiently stamped; writ petition against arbitral admissibility order held not maintainable; liberty to raise issue at final hearing before Tribunal; petition disposed; judges D K Singh (author) and S Rachaiah; decided 21.01.2026; NC: 2026:KHC:3306-DB.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise the admissibility/stamping issue again at the time of final hearing before the Arbitral Tribunal. ¶¶44

Sri. H.Jayarama Reddy Vs M/S. Radient Structures… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:3306-DB WP No. 38572 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 38572 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. H.JAYARAMA REDDY SON OF LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) RESIDING AT NO.2/1B, INFOSYS GATE NO.6, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶10

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI. MANJUNATHA REDDY, SON OF SRI. H. JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2/1B, INFOSYS GATE NO.6, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶12

SMT. ANITHA, DAUGHTER OF SRI. H. JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2/1B,

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:3306-DB WP No. 38572 of 2025

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

INFOSYS GATE NO.6, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

M/S. RADIENT STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.75/757, 10^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. M. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY.

¶20

SRI. N. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, SON OF LATE K.H. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.364, 10^TH CROSS 29^TH 'A' MAIN, HSR LAYOUT SECTOR-I, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶21

SRI. R. GAJENDRA, SON OF SRI N. RAMACHANDRA REDDY,

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3306-DB WP No. 38572 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.364, 10^TH CROSS 29^TH 'A' MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-I, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶25

SMT. R. MONISHA,

¶26

DAUGHTER OF SRI N. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.364, 10^TH CROSS, 29^TH 'A' MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-I, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/11/2021 PASSED ON ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 23/12/2013 MARKED AS ANNEXUREF AND ETC.,

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:3306-DB WP No. 38572 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

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

¶36

The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶37

The petitioners are the respondents who have also filed the counter claim. The petitioners have raised objection in respect to the admissibility of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.12.2013 executed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are the petitioners herein in favour of the claimants. The preliminary ground taken before the Arbitral tribunal was that the said Memorandum of Understanding was not sufficiently stamped. The Tribunal has decided this preliminary issue regarding admissibility of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.12.2013 and held that the said document was admissible and also held that it was sufficiently stamped.

¶38