Kjmc Corporate Advisors (India) ... vs Cetex Petrochemicals Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 199 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

          WRIT PETITION No.23623/2021(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

KJMC CORPORATE ADVISORS
(INDIA) LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS KJMC
GLOBAL MARKET (INDIA) LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT 162, ATLANTA, 16TH FLOOR
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR GIRISH INDERCHAND JAIN
S/O INDERCHAND MOHANLAL JAIN
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. S AISHWARYA, ADVOCATE for
SRI H R NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND

CETEX PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT MANALI, CHENNAI-600068
TAMILNADU.
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIECTOR
MR S ILANAHAI

                                            ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.B.S. MANIAN, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD 16.12.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXXV ADDL
                                    2

CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.86) IN
COM. A.S.NO.25/2017 IN SO FAR AS REJECTING THE PRAYER
OF THE PETITIONER TO ADJOURN THE MATTER BY TWO WEEKS
FOR ADDRESSING THE ARGUMENTS AND POSTING THE MATTER
FOR JUDGMENT BY 22.12.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
CONSEQUENTLY, PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO ADDRESS ITS
ARGUMENTS ON MERITS.

     THIS WRIT PETITON COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated

16.12.2021 passed by the LXXXV Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 86) in Com.AS

No.25/2017 in so far as rejecting the prayer of the

petitioner to adjourn the matter by two weeks for

addressing the arguments and posting the matter for

judgment, is before this Court.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition

are as under;

The petitioner filed a claim petition before the

learned Arbitrator in AC No.57/2015. The learned

Arbitrator, by award dated 29.09.2016, dismissed the

claim petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner being

aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Arbitrator

filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Trial Court in AS

No.4/2017. The respondent has also challenged the

award passed by the learned Arbitrator in AS No.25/2017.

When the matter was set down for arguments, learned

counsel for the petitioner filed an application seeking for

an adjournment by two weeks, as the advocate appearing

for the petitioner had undergone surgery and was not in a

position to address the arguments. The Trial Court,

without considering the reasons assigned in the application

for adjournment, has rejected the application. Hence, the

petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also

learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

counsel who was appearing for the petitioner had

undergone surgery and was not a position to address the

arguments. The said reason was not considered by the

Trial Court and posted the matter for judgment. He

further submits that the Trial Court without hearing the

arguments has posted the matter for judgment. He

further submits that the Trial Court committed an error in

posting the matter for judgment. Hence, on these grounds

prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that if the petitioner is ready to address the

arguments on the next date of hearing, he has no

objection to allow the writ petition.

6. His submission is placed on record.

7. Heard and perused the records as also considered

the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

8. The petitioner as well as the respondent, being

aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Arbitrator,

filed AS Nos.4/2017 and 25/2017 before the Trial Court.

When the matter was set down for arguments, learned

counsel for the petitioner filed an application seeking an

adjournment on the ground that learned counsel for the

petitioner had undergone surgery and was not in a position

to address the arguments. The Trial Court without

considering the reasons assigned for seeking adjournment

has rejected the application and posted the matter for

judgment. The Trial Court has committed an error in

adjourning the matter for judgment without hearing the

arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The

impugned order passed by the Trial Court is arbitrary and

perverse.

9. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is

allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The parties

are directed to co-operate with the Trial Court for early

disposal of the application expeditiously.

Sd/-

JUDGE

mv