Mysugar Company Ltd vs H T Annaji
2023 Latest Caselaw 3692 Kant

                                         -1-
                                                 NC: 2023:KHC:21941-DB
                                                    MFA No.8734 of 2019




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                         DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
                                       PRESENT
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                         AND
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8734 OF 2019 (AA)
               BETWEEN:

               1.  MYSUGAR COMPANY LTD
Digitally          (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING)
signed by
RUPA V             SUGAR TOWN, MANDYA
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
Location:
                                                       ...APPELLANT
High Court
of Karnataka   (BY SRI. MANJUNATH B.S. ADV.,)
               AND:

               1.    H.T. ANNAJI
                     CLASS-I PWD CONTRACTOR
                     RAVINDRA NAGAR, HASSAN.

               2.  K.S. ANANTHRAMAIAH
                   RETIRED CHIEF ENGINEER
                   (VIGILANCE) PWD, MAJOR
                   FLAT NO.102, 56/58
                   SOVEREIGN APARTMENT
                   BASAVANAGUDI, K R ROAD, BENGALURU-560004.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
               (BY SRI. K.S. GANESHA, ADV., FOR R1
                        R3 SERVED)

                    THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 37(1) (c) OF THE ARBITRATION
               AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
               ORDER DATED 19.06.2019, PASSED IN A.S. NO.01/2011, ON
               THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
               MANDYA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.34 OF THE
               ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996.

                   THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
               ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
                                        NC: 2023:KHC:21941-DB
                                           MFA No.8734 of 2019




                             JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act') has been filed against judgment

dated 19.06.2019 passed by the Trial Court by which

petition filed by the appellant 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

(2010) 3 SCC 732

NC: 2023:KHC:21941-DB MFA No.8734 of 2019

process. [SEE: MAYA DEVI Vs. RAJ KUMARI BATRA AND

OTHERS2, SANT LAL GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. MODERN

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 19.06.2019 passed by the Trial

Court, it is evident that no reasons have been assigned by

the Trial Court while deciding the petition preferred by the

appellant. The Trial Court has merely reproduced Section

34 of the Act and in paragraph 16, has held that no

(2010) 9 SCC 486

(2010) 13 SCC 336

(2012) 5 SCC 480

(2015) 12 SCC 291

NC: 2023:KHC:21941-DB MFA No.8734 of 2019

grounds to interfere with the finding of the Arbitrator can

be made out.

4. Accordingly, the impugned judgment cannot be

sustained in the eye of law. The amount deposited by the

appellant in terms of interim order passed by this Court,

may be refunded.

5. In the result, the appeal is disposed of. Matter is

remitted to the Trial Court to decide the same afresh after

hearing the parties, within an outer limit of three months

from today.

Consequently, the pending interlocutory application,

if any, is also disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RV