M/S Micronova Singapore Private ... vs M/S Bharat Electronics Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 6242 Kant

                         -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3013 OF 2022 (AA)

BETWEEN:

M/S. MICRONOVA SINGAPORE
PRIVATE LIMITED
BLOCK NO.83,
YISHUN STREET 81
NO.06-05, ORCHID PARK
SINGAPORE-768446
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. T. S. DEVANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
S/O T. R.SUNDARARAJA IYENGAR
R/AT NO.101,
2ND A CROSS
GAVIPURAM EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560019
                                        ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.DWARAKANATH.H.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED
       JALAHALLI POST,
       BANGALORE-560013
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR
       DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER / P/MMF/EM
       M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED
       JALAHALLI POST
       BENGALURU-560013

2.     MR. SURESH KATYAL
       MAJOR
       SOLE ARBITRATOR IN AWARD
       BG. NO.15011/7/CMD
       GENERAL MANAGER (TELECOM AND
       BROAD CAST SYSTEMS)
                             -2-


        M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED
        JALAHALLI POST
        BENGALURU-560013
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

                           *****

        THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
37(1)(C) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.02.2022
PASSED IN COM.A.S.NO.2/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXII
ADDITIONAL      CITY    CIVIL     AND   SESSIONS   JUDGE,
BENGALURU, (CCH-83), DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
U/S.34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,
1996.


        THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the impugned order arises out of judgment dated

17.02.2022 passed in Com.A.S.No.2/2015 on the file of

the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, (CCH-83). It is submitted that by mistake it

is styled in the nomenclature as 'Miscellaneous First

Appeal', whereas it should be 'Commercial Appeal'.

Learned counsel permitted to carryout necessary

correction and classify this 'Miscellaneous First Appeal'

as 'Commercial Appeal' and the same to be placed

before the Court having the said roster.

Hence, this appeal is disposed of for statistical

purpose.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BH