M/S Gowri Infra Engineers Pvt Ltd vs M/S P G Setty Construction
2022 Latest Caselaw 4911 Kant

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

       WRIT PETITION NO.7969 OF 2021(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

M/S. GOWRI INFRA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,
NO.85, 8TH CROSS, WIDI LAYOUT
CHANDRALAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 040
REPRESENTED BY ITS M D
SRI C P UMESH
S/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMPATH A, ADVOCATE)

AND

M/S. P G SETTY CONSTRUCTION
TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD
NO.1056, KAVITHA VILAS
M G ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURAM
MYSURU-570 005.
PRESENTLY HAVING OFFICE AT
NO.74, SANDESH ARCADE
III FLOOR, SAUKAR CHENNAIAH ROAD
17TH MAIN ROAD
KUVEMPUNAGAR NORTH
SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSURU-570 009.
                                           ....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ASHOK SHESHAGIRI, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI T SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
                                   2




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 10TH MARCH, 2021 PASSED BY THE LXXXIX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ON AN
APPLICATION MARKED AS IA.NO.6 FILED UNDER XXI RULE 46
READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
LATER THE SAID COURT TREATED THE SAME AS AN
APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 52 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE (DUE TO WRONG MENTIONING THE
PROVISION) BY THE RESPONDENT WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS
ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE PETITION.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

Petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in Com.Execution

No.3182 of 2016 on the file of the LXXXIX Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 10th

march 2021 allowing IA.6 filed by the decree holder/respondent

herein.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent

herein has filed AC No.107 of 2015 before the Arbitral Tribunal

against the petitioner herein, and the Arbitral award was passed

on 30th July, 2016 (Annexure R to the statement of objections),

directing the petitioners herein to pay the sum of

Rs.1,28,47,997/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum

from the date of settlement, i.e. 05th March, 2013, till the date of

relalisation. Pursuant to the same, the respondent herein has

filed Execution Petition No.3182 of 2016. In the meanwhile, the

petitioner herein has challenged the arbitral award under Section

34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in AS No.141 of

2016 before the trial Court which also came to be dismissed and

being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have filed

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7039 of 2017 before this Court,

which came to be dismissed. In the meanwhile, the decree

holder/respondent herein has filed IA.6 under Order XXI Rule 46

read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying the

Execution Court to attach sum of Rs.14,34,509/- out of sum of

Rs.19,24,861/- invested in State Bank of India, Cauvery Bhavan

Branch, Bengaluru in Execution Petition No.1110 of 2017. The

trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its order

dated 10th March, 2021, allowed IA.6 filed by the decree holder

under Order XXI Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure by

treating the same as an application filed under Order XXI Rule

52 of Code of Civil Procedure. Feeling aggrieved by the same,

the judgment debtor has filed preferred this writ petition.

3. Sri Sampath A, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner contended that once the principal amount is deposited

before the Court, the judgment debtor is not liable to pay any

interest on the said amount and accordingly, he sought for

interference of this Court insofar as the finding recorded by the

trial Court in the order impugned.

4. Per contra, Sri Ashok Sheshagiri, learned counsel

appearing along with Sri T. Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned

order passed by the trial Court and he also reiterated the

averments made in the statement of objections, inviting the

attention of the Court to the Annexure-R1-award dated 30th July,

2016 made by the learned Arbitrator in AC No.107 of 2015 and

as such, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ

petition.

5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that by

award dated 30th July, 2016 passed in AC No.107 of 2015, the

judgment debtor/petitioner herein was directed to pay a sum of

Rs.1,28,47,997/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

The said Arbitral award was confirmed in AS No.141 of 2016

under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act as well as in

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7039 of 2017 under Section 37 of

the Act, by this Court. In that view of the matter, the judgment

debtor/petitioner herein is liable to honour the award made by

the learned Arbitrator. In the meanwhile, the decree holder has

filed an application in IA.6, under Order XXI Rule 46 read with

Section of 151 Code of Civil Procedure, and the trial Court, after

considering the material on record, by impugned order, has

rightly allowed the application IA.6 by treating the said

application under Order XXI Rule 52 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. The finding recorded by the trial Court at paragraph

25 to 27 of the impugned order would indicate the reasons for

allowing IA.6. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that

exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India by this Court, is very limited and therefore, I am of the

view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is just

and proper and does not call for interference in this writ petition.

Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn