Four Flavours Llp vs Mr Deepak Shinde
2022 Latest Caselaw 3331 Kant

                               1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                            AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                REVIEW PETITION NO.355/2021
                             IN
               COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.92/2021

BETWEEN:

FOUR FLAVOURS LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
NO.133/2, 4TH FLOOR,
JANARDHAN TOWERS,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560025
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DESIGNATED PARTNERS
MR. NIMISH BHATIA AND
MR. BIRIJESH D.K
                                              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI RICAB CHAND K, ADV.)

AND:

1.     MR. DEEPAK SHINDE
       S/O DR. V.S.LOKANATH RAO SINDHE,
       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT NO.10, CASTLE STREET,
       ASHOK NAGAR,
       BANGALORE - 560025
       PRESENTLY IN NEW JERSEY, USA,
                             2


     REPRESENTED BY HIS
     POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
     MR. SUHAIL AHMED,
     S/O MR. ABDUL KHAYUM SAB,
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT NO.27,
     EAST STREET, NEELASANDRA,
     BENGALURU - 560047.

2.   SHRI. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
     FORMER JUDGE OF THE
     HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     SOLE ARBITRATOR IN A.C.111/2017
     ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION CENTRE,
     KANIJA BHAVAN, NO.49,
     3RD FLOOR, EAST WING,
     RACE COURSE ROAD,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.

                                           ... RESPONDENTS



     THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
OF   CPC,   PRAYING    TO       JUDGMENT     AND    ORDER
DATED:21/09/2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.92/2021(AA), MARKED
AND ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A, MAY BE RECALLED AND
REVIEWED ETC.




     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                3


                           ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.

Learned counsel fo the review petitioner would

contend that the coordinate bench has fallen in error in not

appreciating the facts canvassed by the appellant. That the

facts as set out by the Court of First Appeal is contrary to

the mandate conferred by the parties on the Tribunal

(Arbitral). The parties approached the Arbitral Tribunal and

that the very claim itself was for arrears of rent for a period

of three months and that the Arbitral Tribunal traveled

beyond the mandate and has traversed areas which was not

within its mandate/domain. It is further submitted that the

findings rendered therein are erroneous. The answer lies in

paragraphs 26 and 27 of the judgment sought to be

reviewed. In paragraph 28 reliance is placed on the ruling

of the Hon'ble apex Court reported in 2019 (4) SCC 163

(MMTC Limited vs. Vedanta Limited) which reflects the law

holding the field. In that view of the matter, the petitioner

is unable to point out and demonstrate any error apparent

on the face of the order. The contentions canvassed relate

to the merits of the appeal and in that view of the matter,

the instant petition being a review petition it is improper

and impermissible for this bench to appreciate the same.

That apart the Hon'ble Apex Court has also been pleased to

reject the SLA (C) No.2453/2022 preferred by the review

petitioner aggrieved by the judgment which is sought to be

reviewed.

In view of the above, review petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ykl CT-HR