Moula Ali vs M/S D Y Prime Properties Llp
2022 Latest Caselaw 2245 Kant

                               1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

                 COMAP No.65 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1.     MOULA ALI,
       S/O. DURVESH KALFE BABA FAKRUDDIN,
       56 YEARS,
       R/AT RAZAK SAB PALYA VILLAGE,
       BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
       BENGALURU.

2.     RAVI,
       S/O. B.S. ANJINAPPA,
       AGED 54 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.38, KOLIPURA,
       BANDAKODIGE HALLI,
       (B.K. HALLI) POST,
       BENGALURU NORTH,
       BENGALURU.
                                            ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADV.)

AND

M/S. D.Y. PRIME PROPERTIES LLP,
A REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.908,
BLOCK - A, SMR VINAY CITY,
MIYAPUR, RANGA REDDY,
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 560 049,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
G-RAMESH KUMAR REDDY,
S/O. VENKATARAMANA REDDY, 45 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.603, BLOCK-D,
ALPINE PYRAMID APARTMENTS,
CANARA BANK LAYOUT,
                                   2

RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR,
SAHAKARANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 092.
                                                 ... RESPONDENT

      THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF THE
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W SECTION 37(1) (b) OF
THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2021 IN COMMERCIAL
A.P.NO.47/2021 PASSED BY THE LXXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU CITY, (CCH-90)
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND ETC.


    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           JUDGMENT

The appellants are before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

"i. Call for the entire records in Com.A.P.No.47/2021 from the file of the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-90) and set aside the judgment and order dated 15.11.2021 in Com.A.P.No.47/2021 and allow the appeal as prayed for;

ii. Call for the entire records in A.C.No.194/2019 from the Arbitral Tribunal Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru (Domestic and International) and set aside the award and order dated 22.02.2021 in A.C.No.194/2019 and dismiss the claim petition; iii. Pass any judgment, order or decree as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. COM.A.P.No.47/2021 has been filed praying to

set aside the award dated 22.02.2021 passed by the Sole

Arbitrator in A.C.No.194/2019. The appellants herein, who

were the respondents therein were directed to make

payment of Rs.1,25,00,000/- along with pendente lite

interest at the rate of 12% per annum and future interest at

the rate of 14% per annum.

3. Shri. Karumbaiah T.A., learned counsel for the

appellants would submit that the Commercial Appellate

Court ought to have interfered with the said award since the

award was contrary to Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act')

inasmuch as there is no Clause or Agreement providing for

interest and as such, no interest could have been awarded

by the learned Arbitrator. That apart, he submits that the

learned Arbitrator has not taken into consideration the

evidence which was placed before him and has

misconstrued the evidence placed before him to arrive at a

conclusion for any amount due and payable by the

appellants to the claimant in the said proceedings.

4. The Commercial Appellate Court (Section 34

Court) has considered this very contention which has been

raised before it and has come to a conclusion that there are

no grounds permissible under Section 34 of the Arbitration

Act, inasmuch as the only ground of challenge to the

arbitral award are those stated in Section 34 of the

Arbitration Act.

5. The non-appreciation of evidence and award of

interest would not be one which would come under the

purview of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

6. After having heard Sri. T. Karumbaiah, learned

counsel for the appellant, the only question remains for

consideration with regard to award of interest, the Apex

Court in the case of Hyder Consulting (VK) Limited Vs.

Governor, State of Orissa, through Chief Engineer

reported in (2015) 2 SCC 189 has held that even where

interest is not provided in the agreement, taking into

account the transaction being commercial transaction, the

Arbitrator would be at liberty to grant interest. As such, the

contention of learned counsel for the appellant, Shri.

Karumabaiah T.A. that the Arbitrator could not have

awarded interest is also not a ground available for

challenge of an arbitral award. In the above circumstances,

we do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the

Commercial Appellate Court or the award passed by the

learned Arbitrator.

Appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission

itself.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not

survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of.

SD/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/-

JUDGE

BMC