Karnataka High Court
Sri Sandeep G Parvatikar vs Sri Srikakula Kondandaram ... on 6 July, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Anant Ramanath Hegde
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB
COMAP No.34 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.34 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SANDEEP G. PARVATIKAR
SON OF SRI. G.M. PARVATIKAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1077, 5TH A MAIN
Digitally
signed by GOKUL 1ST STAGE, II PHASE
RUPA V MATHIKERE, BANGALORE - 560054.
Location:
2. SRI. S.R. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY
High Court
of Karnataka SON OF SRI. M. SIDDAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS.
2(a) SMT. ARUNA MALLIKARJUNASWAMY
WIFE OF SRI. S.R. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY
AGED MAJOR.
2(b) MS. AMRUTHA
DAUGHTER OF SRI. S.R. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY
AGED MINOR
REP. BY HER MOTHER
SMT. ARUNA MALLIKARJUNASWAMY.
2 TO 2(b) ARE RESIDING AT 117
II CROSS, 7TH MAIN
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR
T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE.
3. M/S ATALANATA PUMPS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
RAMSON BUILDING, SJP ROAD
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB
COMAP No.34 of 2022
BANGALORE - 560041
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
SRI SANDEEP G. PARVATIKAR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MURALIDHARA C, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. SRIKAKULA KODANDARAM RAMADHYANI
SON OF SHRI SRIKAKULA KODANDARAM RAM
RESIDING AT NO.30009/2
17TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560070.
1(a) SMT. NIRMALA RAMADHYANI
W/O SRIKKULA KODANDARAM RAMDHYANI
AGED MAJOR.
1(b) SMT. SHALINI PARIGI
D/O SRIKKULA KODANDARAM RAMDHYANI
AGED MAJOR.
1(c) NAGANAND RAMDHYANI SRIKAKULA
S/O SRIKKULA KODANDARAM RAMDHYANI
AGED MAJOR.
RESPONDENTS NOS.1(a) TO 1(c)
RESIDING AT NO.30009/2
17TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560070.
2. SRI. KAMASAMUDRAM M. RAMKRISHNA PRASAD
S/O K.R. MARKANDEGOWDA
R/AT. 452, 39TH CROSS
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, ADV., FOR R1 (a to c)
SRI. S. MAHESH, ADV., FOR C/R2)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB
COMAP No.34 of 2022
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W SECTION 37 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION
SUIT NO.69/2019 ON THE FILE OF LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (COMMERCIAL
COURT). CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE LEARNED ARBITRAL
TRIBUNAL IN THE ARBITRATION CASE NOS.42/2018 R/W
96/2018. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 03/12/2021 PASSED BY THE
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU (COMMERCIAL COURT) IN COM.A.S.NO.69/2019
AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE
AWARD DATED 21/01/2019 BEFORE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
COMPRISING OF JUSTICE SRI. ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS
WITH COSTS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE
LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior counsel for
the appellant.
Mr.Kiran V.Ron, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(c).
This intra Court appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') has been filed against judgment
NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB
COMAP No.34 of 2022
dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Commercial Court by
which petition filed by the appellants under Section 34
of the Act has been rejected.
2. Taking into account the nature of order which we
propose to pass after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties at length, it is not necessary to advert with the facts
of the case. It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial
authority is required to assign reasons for passing the
order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme
court in VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH
GANATANTRIK NAGRIK1, reasons were held to be the
heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an
essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that
ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making
process. [SEE: MAYA DEVI Vs. RAJ KUMARI BATRA AND
OTHERS2, SANT LAL GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. MODERN
(2010) 3 SCC 732
(2010) 9 SCC 486
NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB
COMAP No.34 of 2022
CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND
OTHERS3, UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs.
TALWINDER SINGH4, and UNION OF INDIA Vs.
RAVINDER KUMAR5].
3. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident
that the requirement of assigning reasons have been held
as part of justice by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On
perusal of judgment dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Trial
Court, it is evident that no reasons have been assigned by
the Commercial Court while deciding the petition preferred
by the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned judgment
cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
4. In the result, the appeal is disposed of. Matter is
remitted to the Commercial Court to decide the same
(2010) 13 SCC 336
(2012) 5 SCC 480
(2015) 12 SCC 291
NC: 2023:KHC:23260-DB
COMAP No.34 of 2022
afresh after hearing the parties, within an outer limit of
three months from today.
All contentions are kept to be agitated before the
Commercial Court.
Needless to state that the deposit made by the
appellant in pursuance of interim order passed in this
appeal, shall abide by the decision taken by the
Commercial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
