Karnataka High Court
Sri. Satyanarayana Muniyappa vs Siemens Financial Services Pvt. ... on 21 July, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25411
CRP No. 416 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 416 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SATYANARAYANA MUNIYAPPA
SOLE PROPRIETOR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
M/S. RAHUL INDUSTRIES,
NO.A-18, HMT INDUSTRIES
ESTAET, JALAHALLI,
BENGALURU (URBAN) -560 013.
ALSO AT:
NO. 836, 7TH CROSS,
BAHUBALINAGAR,
JALAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 013.
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T ALSO AT:
Location: HIGH NO. 255, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS,
COURT OF KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
KARNATAKA
VISHWESHWARAIAH
LAYOUT ABBIGERE,
JALAHALLI WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 015.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PREMNATH N.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SIEMENS FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
A NON-BANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY
DULY REGISTERED WITH
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25411
CRP No. 416 of 2023
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT PLOT NO.2, SECTOR 2,
KHARGHAR NODE,
NAVI MUMBAI - 410 210,
MAHARASHTRA, INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. VAIBHAV PRIYADARSHINI.
2. MRS. GAYATHRI,
GUARANTOR,
NO.836, 7TH CROSS,
BAHUBALINAGAR,
JALAHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 560 013.
ALSO AT:
NO.255, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS,
KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT,
ABBIGERE JALAHALLI WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 015.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2023 PASSED IN COM. EX.
NO.120/2023 ON THE FILE OF C/C. LXXXVI ACC AND SJ,
BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SEC.17/(1) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,
1996.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:25411
CRP No. 416 of 2023
ORDER
This matter is listed for admission. I have heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated
13.06.2023 passed in Com.Ex.No.120/2023 on the file of C/c
LXXXVI ACC and SJ, Bengaluru, allowing the petition filed under
Section 17/(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. The execution petition is filed in view of the interim
order passed by the Arbitrator and as against the same, Com.
M.A.No.9/2022 is filed before the Appellate Court and the same
was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Consequent upon withdrawal, in the execution petition on
13.06.2023, the Trial Court having noted the fact that
Com.M.A.No.9/2022 was withdrawn, observed that, inspite of
sufficient opportunity being given to the judgment debtor, till
date, he has not resisted the execution petition by filing the
objections.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought
to notice of this Court the certified copy of the order sheet in
Com.Ex.No.120/2023. The records also disclose that he had
NC: 2023:KHC:25411
CRP No. 416 of 2023
undertaken to appear on behalf of judgment debtor by filing a
memo and the same was taken on record and both the
petitioner-judgment debtor and the counsel made the
submission that Arbitrator also reserved the matter for orders
and hence, from 15.04.2023 to 12.06.2023, in view of the
submission, matter was adjourned. On 12.06.2023, learned
counsel for both the parties were present and learned counsel
for the judgment debtor submitted that judgment debtor did
not turn up to their office and prayed time to file vakalath on
behalf of judgment debtor and also to file objection. Hence, the
Court comes to the conclusion that sufficient opportunity was
given and even though the counsel undertaken to file vakalath
and objections by filing a memo on 15.04.2023 that he will
appear on behalf of the judgment debtor and file objections
resisting the execution petition, he filed only the vakalath and
hence, the Court heard the learned counsel for the judgment
debtor and decided the matter on 13.06.2023.
5. That on 13.06.2023, the Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that though the judgment debtor was given
sufficient opportunity to file objections, till date he has not filed
objections resisting the execution petition. The counsel brought
NC: 2023:KHC:25411
CRP No. 416 of 2023
to notice of this Court that on 13.06.2023, he has filed vakalath
for judgment debtor but, not filed the objections and counsel
pointed out that the matter was adjourned to file objections
and to pass an order on 06.07.2023. But, on perusal of the
order sheet, it is seen that the matter was kept for passing
orders at 3.00 p.m., no doubt the Presiding Officer has striked
out mentioning with regard to objections and the next date of
hearing mentioned as 06.07.2023. Even considering the said
fact into consideration also, when the petitioner himself has
withdrawn the appeal challenging the interim order passed by
the Arbitrator, there is nothing on record to question the
execution petition filed without even filing the objection and the
order passed by the Arbitrator as interim measure has also
attained its finality and the fact that the appeal was withdrawn
was also not disputed. Hence, the respondent herein has to
enforce the interim order.
6. When such being the case, I do not find any ground
to admit the matter and grant stay and there is no merit in the
revision and inspite of the fact that the judgment debtor
appeared in the month of April, 2023 through a counsel by
filing a memo, on 15.04.2023 also, not filed any objections
NC: 2023:KHC:25411
CRP No. 416 of 2023
resisting the execution petition on 13.06.2023. Hence, the Trial
Court proceeded to pass an order. Therefore, I do not find any
merit in the revision.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
