Vision India Software Exports Ltd vs Mphasis Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 3825 Kant

                         -1-



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                      PRESENT

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

                         AND

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                COMAP No.109 OF 2021

BETWEEN:


VISION INDIA SOFTWARE EXPORTS LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PLOT NO.14, SHUBHANKAR BUNGALOW
DHANASHREE COLONY
NEAR CUMMINS ENGINEERINGS COLLEGE
KARVE ROAD, PUNE-411 052
REP BY JATIN VASANT KULKARNI
                                         ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAWLEY MUDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)


AND:
MPHASIS LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
BAGAMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
MARATHALLI OUTER RING ROAD
DODDANAKUNDI VILLAGE
MAHADEVAPURA
BANGALORE - 560 048
REP BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT LEGAL
MR HEMANTH ANANTH RAM
                                       ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT H.PAVITHRA, ADVOCATE)
                          ---
                                  -2-



       THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1) (C) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 R/W SECTION 13
(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/04/2021
PASSED IN COM.A.S.NO.111/2018, PASSED BY THE COURT OF
LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-88) AND
ETC.


       THIS COMAP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the impugned

judgment and order dated 19.04.2021 passed in

COM.A.S.111/2018 by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil

Judge (Commercial court), Bengaluru, whereby the said suit

filed by the appellant - plaintiff against the respondent -

defendant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Act of 1996') was

dismissed by the Commercial court, thereby, confirming the

impugned award dated 16.10.2017 passed in AC

No.69/2017 by the Arbitral Tribunal (sole arbitrator) before

the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru

(Domestic and International).

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and

learned counsel for the respondent and perused the

material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the

respondent - claimant filed a claim petition before the

Arbitral Tribunal for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,15,754.28/-

together with interest and other reliefs against the

appellant. The said Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by this

Court vide order dated 10.02.2017 after hearing both the

respondent and the appellant in CMP No.144/2016.

4. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, the respondent -

claimant appeared and filed its statement of claim.

However, though notice was served on the appellant, it did

not chose to appear nor file its statement of objections,

despite sufficient opportunity having been given to the

appellant as can be seen from the findings and observations

recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

5. On behalf of the respondent, one witness PW-1

was examined and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. As stated

supra, the appellant herein neither appeared before the

Tribunal nor filed its statement of objections. So also, the

appellant did not either cross-examine the aforesaid PW-1

nor adduced any oral and documentary evidence on its

behalf. Further, though the respondent addressed

arguments before the Tribunal, the appellant did not do so,

as can be seen from the impugned award passed by the

Tribunal.

6. After hearing the respondent, the Tribunal

proceeded to pass the impugned award partly allowing the

claim of the respondent, thereby directing the appellant to

pay a sum of Rs.19,95,630.68/- together with cost and

interest at 10% p.a. from 03.05.2013 up to the date of

payment in favour of the respondent.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the

Arbitral Tribunal, the appellant herein filed the aforesaid

suit against the respondent herein under Section 34 of the

said Act of 1996. It was contended that the documents

produced by the respondent before the Tribunal, in

particular the Invoices at Exs.P3 to P13 were concocted and

fraudulent documents, which could not have been made the

basis by the Tribunal to uphold the claim of the respondent.

It was also contended that the award passed by the

Tribunal was contrary to law and the material on record

which had not been correctly and properly appreciated by

the Tribunal. It was further contended that the appellant

has a good case to urge on merits and as such, it was

necessary that an opportunity is granted in favour of the

appellant to put forth its defence by setting aside the

impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

8. The respondent herein contested the said suit /

petition filed by the appellant before the Commercial court

by filing its statement of objections and interalia contended

that apart from the fact that the impugned award of the

Tribunal was just and proper, having regard to the limited

scope of interference by the Commercial court under

Section 34 of the said Act of 1996, there was no merit in

the suit / petition and that the same was liable to be

dismissed.

9. After hearing the parties, the Commercial court

referred to the rival contentions and has recorded a finding

of fact that the appellant was not diligent in defending the

proceedings before the Tribunal. The Commercial court,

taking note of the limited scope of interference under

Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 and referring to the

various decisions in this regard came to the conclusion that

in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant

had not made out a case within the parameters of Section

34, viz., patent illegality or in contravention of fundamental

policy of Indian law or in conflict with the public policy of

India or basic notions of morality or justice. While arriving

at the said conclusion, the Commercial court has correctly

and properly appreciated the entire material on record and

arrived at a just, fair, proper and reasonable conclusion

that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal did not

warrant interference by the Court under Section 34 of the

said Act of 1996.

10. On careful perusal of the material on record and

after giving our anxious consideration to the rival

submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the

impugned award passed by the Tribunal as well as the

impugned judgment and order passed by the Commercial

court are correct and proper and the same do not contain

any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be

perverse or capricious warranting interference by this Court

in the present appeal under Section 37 of the said Act of

1996.

11. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the

appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

SD/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/-

JUDGE

Srl.