Karnataka High Court
M/S Dbest Cars India Private ... vs M/S Zoomcar India Private Limited on 31 March, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, S R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.214 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
M/S DBEST CARS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT
C-33, GROUND FLOOR, LAJPAT NAGAR-I
NEW DELHI 110 024
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. PRANAV GOEL
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI DEEPAK BHASKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S ZOOMCAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT
GROUND FLOOR-ENZYME TECH PARK
#4 BUILDING, DOMLUR SERVICE ROAD
13, HAL OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
DOMLUR I STAGE, ISRO COLONY
DOMLUR, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA-560 071
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SREENIVASA RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ARCHISHMAN CHAUDHURY, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
13(1) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 READ WITH
SECTION 37 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,
1996, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN COM.
A.A.138/2021 BEFORE THE LD. LXXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-86) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the respondent in
Com.A.A.No.138/2021 is directed against the impugned
order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the LXXXV Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru whereby, the
application filed by the respondent-applicant under Section
9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short,
the said Act of 1996) read with Section 6 of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 (for short, the said Act of 2015) was
partly allowed by the Commercial Court thereby, directing
the appellant herein to hand over possession of 71 cars
belonging to the respondent-applicant on or before
20.11.2021. The dispute between the parties arises out of
an agreement dated 24.10.2017 and addendums thereto
executed between the appellant and the respondent and
other documents relied upon by both sides; suffice it to
state that both parties have agreed to settle the dispute
between them by taking recourse to arbitration.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and perused the
material on record.
3. Though several contentions have been urged by
both sides in support of their respective claims, a perusal of
the impugned order will indicate that the Commercial Court
has directed the appellant herein to hand over possession
of the subject 71 cars in favour of the respondent. It is
jointly submitted by both sides that the directions given in
the impugned order have not been complied with by the
appellant and that the said 71 cars continue to be in
possession of the appellant as on today.
4. It is jointly submitted on behalf of the appellant
as well as the respondent that both the appellant and the
respondent have preferred CMP No.173/2022 and CMP
No.373/2022 respectively seeking constitution of a Arbitral
Tribunal comprising of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon
the disputes between the parties. On instructions, learned
counsel for the appellant as well as learned Senior Counsel
for the respondent jointly submit that the dispute between
the parties may be referred to arbitration by appointing
Sri.A.V. Chandrashekara, former Judge of this Court to
enter upon reference as the sole arbitrator. The joint
submission of both sides is placed on record.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties and leaving / keeping open all
contentions to be urged before the Arbitral Tribunal, we
deem it just and proper to appoint
Sri A.V. Chandrashekara, Former Judge of this Court as a
sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the
appellant and the respondent and accordingly, we hereby
dispose of this appeal without interfering with the impugned
order passed by the Commercial Court and by issuing
certain directions in this regard.
6. In the result, we pass the following:-
ORDER
a) The appeal is disposed of
without interfering with the impugned
order dated 08.11.2021 passed in
Com.A.A.No.138/2021 by the LXXXV
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru; it is however made clear that
the impugned order passed by the
Commercial Court under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, shall
not affect or prejudice the rights and
contentions of the parties in the arbitration
proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal
constituted under this order.
b) It is directed that without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the parties and leaving open all
contentions, the appellant shall hand over
the possession of 71 cars as directed by
the Commercial Court in the impugned
order on or before 20.04.2022 subject to
the respondent furnishing the list of the
aforesaid 71 cars together with registration
numbers details etc., to the appellant in
advance.
c) It is made clear that handing
over of possession of the aforesaid 71 cars
by the appellant and taking possession of
the same by the respondent would be
without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties.
d) In view of the consent given by
both parties, we hereby appoint
the following sole Arbitrator to enter upon
reference and adjudicate the dispute
between the parties:
Sri A.V.Chandrashekara,
Former Judge,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru.
e) All rival contentions of the
parties including the contentions urged by
them before the Commercial Court as well
as before this Court are kept / left open to
be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The pending interlocutory applications stand disposed
of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KPS
