Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sandeep R Nahar vs M/S. Federal Brands India Ltd on 19 June, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:21047
MFA No. 1619 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1619 OF 2016 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SANDEEP R. NAHAR
S/O. RAMESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF M/S. NEW HORIZON
C/O. R/AT NO.353
5TH FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK
RANKA NEST APARTMENTS
OKALIPURAM
BANGALORE-560 021.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.D. SURANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. FEDERAL BRANDS INDIA LTD.
Digitally signed FORMERLY M/S. MICROTEX INDIA LTD.,
by SHARANYA T
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AT NO.46-A, MIDC, ANDHERI (EAST)
KARNATAKA MUMBAI-400 093.
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE
AT NO.28-1A
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
DODDAKALLASANDRA
NEAR KUMARANS SCHOOL
BANGALORE-560 062.
2. SRI P.S. CHOWHAN
MAJOR
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT NO.2
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:21047
MFA No. 1619 of 2016
CHAMBER NO.1, 1ST FLOOR
KAMGAR ROAD
NEAR BY LITTLE FLOWER SCHOOL
ANDHERI EAST
MUMBAI-400 069.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE(1)(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.1
IN O.S.NO.7122/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 60TH ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING
THE IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This appeal is filed against the order dated
16.02.2016 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S.No.7122/2015 on the
file of the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, dismissing I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and
2 of C.P.C.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant in this appeal is that the appellant-plaintiff has filed
the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the appointment
NC: 2023:KHC:21047
MFA No. 1619 of 2016
of the second defendant made by the first defendant as an
Arbitrator for arbitration is illegal, null and void and not binding
on the plaintiff. A further declaration is also sought to declare
that all acts, if any done by the second defendant pursuant to
his appointment are all null and void and not binding on the
plaintiff. The said relief is prayed by the plaintiff on the ground
that the plaintiff has not executed the agreement dated
22.02.2007 and also contend that the said document is created
by the first defendant to play fraud on the plaintiff. The
appellant also inter-alia sought for an order of temporary
injunction restraining the second defendant from acting as
Arbitrator between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, pending
disposal of the suit. However, the Arbitrator has already been
appointed and an award has also been passed and the
appointment of Arbitrator is challenged in O.S.No.7122/2015,
which is pending consideration.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
other Civil Revision Petition is pending before this Court in
C.R.P.No.204/2019 and execution of the award passed by the
Arbitrator is stayed in the said petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:21047
MFA No. 1619 of 2016
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would
submit that this appeal has become infructuous, in view of the
fact that already the Arbitrator has passed an award and suit is
also filed questioning the very appointment of Arbitrator. The
counsel also would submit that the grounds which are urged in
the Civil Revision Petition as well as in this appeal can be kept
open since, this appeal has rendered itself infructuous.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and learned counsel for the respondent No.1, when an
application is filed before the Court invoking Order 39, Rules 1
and 2 of C.P.C. seeking an order of temporary injunction
restraining the second defendant from acting as an Arbitrator
between the plaintiff and first defendant, pending disposal of
the suit, there is not dispute with regard to the fact that suit is
pending. However, the fact is that the Arbitrator is appointed
and he has also passed an award and the same is questioned
and when an execution was filed seeking to enforce the order
passed by the Arbitrator, the execution is stayed by this Court
in C.R.P.No.204/2019. When the appointment of an Arbitrator
is questioned in O.S.No.7122/2015 and the award passed by
the Arbitrator is also questioned in the execution and the Civil
NC: 2023:KHC:21047
MFA No. 1619 of 2016
Revision Petition is also pending and further, in view of the fact
that the Arbitrator has already been appointed and award is
also passed and the very appointment is questioned in the suit
and Civil Revision Petition is also pending, this appeal has
rendered itself infructuous. However, the grounds which have
been urged in the Civil Revision Petition as well as in the suit in
O.S.No.7122/2015 are kept open and both the matters can be
disposed of on merits and the observation made by the Trial
Court while passing the order on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.7122/2015
shall not influence the Trial Court while taking the decision in
future, in view of the very appeal rendering itself infructuous.
With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
