M/S Ramky Energy And Environment ... vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4900 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4900 Kant
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2022

Karnataka High Court

M/S Ramky Energy And Environment ... vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara ... on 16 March, 2022

Bench: Chief Justice, S R.Krishna Kumar

                           -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                      PRESENT

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

                           AND

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

             MFA NO. 5111 OF 2020 (AA)
                       C/W
             MFA NO. 5232 OF 2020 (AA)

IN MFA NO. 5111 OF 2020:

BETWEEN:
M/S. RAMKY ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT LTD
COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT 1956
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
DOOR NO 6-3-1089/G/10 & 11
GULMOHAR AVENUE, RAJ BHAWAN ROAD
SOMAJIGUDA ,HYDERABAD - 500 082
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. D.V. SAI VARDHAN REDDY
                                           ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. MANEESHA KNOGOVI, ADVOCATE )


AND:


1.   BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     N R SQUARE
     BENGALURU - 560 002
     REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2.   JUSTICE SRI V. JAGANNATHAN
     FORMER JUDGE
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     SOLE ARBITRATOR
     ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE
                            -2-


     KHANIJA BHAVAN
     RACE COURSE ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 001
     KARNATAKA


                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.J. PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
 V/O. DATED 03.02.2021, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                            ---
      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 37 (1)(C) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
12.08.2020, PASSED IN A.S.NO.163/2018 ON THE III ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDEGE, BENGALURU (CCH.25).


IN MFA NO. 5232 OF 2020

BETWEEN:
M/S. RAMKY ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT LTD
COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT 1956
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
DOOR NO 6-3-1089/G/10 & 11
GULMOHAR AVENUE
RAJ BHAWAN ROAD
SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 500 082
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. D.V. SAI VARDHAN REDDY

                                            ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. MANEESHA KNOGOVI, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.   BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     NR SQUARE
     BENGALURU - 560 002
     REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2.   THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
     HEALTH AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
     BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     NR SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
                              -3-



3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (HEALTH)
     BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     NR SQUARE,
     BENGALURU - 560 002




                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3;
 V/O. DATED 03.02.2021, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                            ---

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 37 (1)(C) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF A.S NO.
159/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE III ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 25), BENGALURU DATED
12.08.2020 AND ETC.

     THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J.
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Both these appeals arise out of the impugned

common judgment and order dated 12.08.2020 passed in

A.S.No.163/2018 c/w A.S.No.159/2018 on the file of the III

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant,

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the

material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that on

03.05.2018, the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a sole

Arbitrator allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant-

claimant in part thereby, directing the respondent-BBMP to

pay a sum of Rs.4.00 Crores with interest at the rate of 9%

per annum from the date of termination of Concession

Agreement i.e., from 28.05.2016 till realization; however,

the counter claim by the respondent-BBMP was rejected.

4. Aggrieved by the arbitral award, the appellant-

claimant filed A.S.No.159/2018 before the Trial Court. So

also, aggrieved by the arbitral award, the respondent-BBMP

also filed A.S.No.163/2018. Both the suits were taken up

together by the Trial Court.

5. During the course of the proceedings, the

appellant-claimant filed an application seeking transfer of

the suit to the designated Commercial Court in view of

Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short

'the said Act of 2015'). Though the said application was not

opposed by the respondent-BBMP, the Trial Court

proceeded to pass an interim order on 09.12.2019 rejecting

the said application holding that the dispute between the

parties was not a commercial dispute within the meaning of

Section 2(1)(c)(vi) and (vii) r/w Section 10(3) of the said

Act of 2015. Pursuant thereto, the Trial Court proceeded to

hear the parties and passed the impugned common order

dismissing A.S.No.159/2018 filed by the appellant-claimant

and partly allowing A.S.No.163/2018 filed by the

respondent-plaintiff. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment

and order passed by the Trial Court, the appellant is before

this Court by way of the present appeals.

6. A perusal of the order dated 09.12.2019

rejecting the application filed by the appellant-claimant

seeking transfer of the suit to the designated Commercial

Court will indicate that the Trial Court has failed to consider

and appreciate that in the light of the provisions contained

in Section 2(1)(c)(vi) and (vii) r/w Section 10(3) and the

explanation to Section 2 of the said Act of 2015, the dispute

between the parties amounts to a commercial dispute

within the meaning of the said provisions and consequently,

both the suits pending before the Trial Court deserved to be

transferred to the designated Commercial Court and failure

to appreciate this while passing the order dated 09.12.2019

has resulted in erroneous conclusion and consequently, the

said order dated 09.12.2019 deserves to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, in view of our finding that the

dispute between the parties is a commercial dispute, the

Trial Court did not have jurisdiction or authority of law to

adjudicate upon the aforesaid suits and on this ground

alone, the impugned judgment and order passed by the

Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the matter is to be

remitted back to the designated Commercial Court for

re-consideration afresh in accordance with law within a

stipulated time frame. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

a) Both M.F.A.Nos. 5111/2020 and 5232/2020 are hereby allowed.


      b)    The order dated 09.12.2019 as well as the
            impugned common judgment and order
            dated        12.08.2020           passed         in

A.S.No.163/2018 c/w A.S.No.159/2018 on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City are hereby set aside.

c) The matter is remitted back to the designated Commercial Court, Bengaluru for re-consideration afresh in accordance

with law after giving sufficient opportunity to both parties.

d) All rival contentions on merits are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.

e) Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records forthwith.

f) The designated Commercial Court is directed to hear the parties and dispose of the suits in accordance with law without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded in the impugned order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months, if possible, bearing in mind the time lines prescribed in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.