Karnataka High Court
Sri. S.V. Rajendra Singh Babu vs M/S Navashakthi Enterprises on 22 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7489
MFA No. 16 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2024 (AA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S.V. RAJENDRA SINGH BABU
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHANKAR SINGH,
R/AT C/O S.PRATIMA DEVI
NO.2961/21, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE-570009,
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.R.MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. NAVASHAKTHI ENTERPRISES
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
Digitally signed SRI C. NAGARAJ,
by SHARANYA T AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
Location: HIGH OFFICE AT CASINO BUILDING,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-556009
2. M/S. SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA
ARTS PVT. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI A. MOHAN
NO.31, GROUND FLOOR,
166TH MAIN, 39TH CROSS,
'T' BLOCK, M.R. LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560041.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7489
MFA No. 16 of 2024
AND ALSO R/AT NO.442, 1ST FLOOR,
DIAGONAL ROAD, V.V.PURAM,
BENGALURU-560004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAGHUNATHA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2024,
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.37(1)(c) OF THE ARBITRATION
AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DT.29.11.2023 PASSED IN A.S.NO.25004/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (CCH-74), DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED U/S.34(2) OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT, 1996.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the
respondents before the Karnataka Film Chamber of
Commerce i.e., Arbitration Board in Arbitration Case
No.24/2009 is that the dispute between the producer and
the distributor of the kannada film future film ' Mohini '.
According to the petitioner, the petitioner was given the
rights of distributing of the above said picture by the
NC: 2024:KHC:7489
respondents for Chitradurga and Ballari area. At the time
of acquiring the distribution right, the petitioner obtained a
sum of Rs.15,80,880/- to the respondents which includes
cost of one extra print, litho's charges, local reel shifting
charges, representatives bata and theatre decoration etc.,
It was further agreed that, the above said amount paid by
the petitioner to the respondents will be returned to the
petitioner within a period of three months.
3. It is also contended that after the release of the
said film, the respondents have paid only a part of the
amount and still the respondents owe a sum of
Rs.6,28,693/- (Rupees six lakhs Twenty eight thousand six
hundred and ninety three only). It is urged before the
Arbitrator that despite his repeated demands including 6-7
letters, the respondents never responded nor repaid the
amount. Hence, sought for direction against the
respondents to pay the amount of Rs.6,28,693/-. In
pursuance of the notice issued by the Arbitration Board,
the respondents wrote a letter dated 20.08.2007 stating
that the respondents were busy in shooting a film in
NC: 2024:KHC:7489
Mysore and other cities and sought 15 days time and
repeated notices were sent to the respondents and case
was adjourned on various dates which have mentioned in
the award also. Almost 25 dates are fixed before the
Arbitrator, this appellant also attended before the
Arbitration board. On 03.06.2008 and also 06.04.2009 and
respondent No.2 never appeared before the Arbitrator and
when the matter was taken up before the Arbitrator Board,
the petitioner was present and he made his statement, the
same was recorded and also having considered the
agreement executed between the parties and also various
letters addressed by the petitioner to the respondents
asking them to repay the said amount and no response
from the respondents. Hence, having taken note of the
statement of the petitioner and also documents which
were not controverted and challenged. The Arbitration
board taken the decision directing the respondents to pay
the amount of Rs.6,28,693/- and award should be
complied by the respondents within 30 days from the date
NC: 2024:KHC:7489
of receipt of the award wherein 6% P.A interest shall be
levied. This award was passed on 13.04.2010.
4. Being aggrieved by this award, an arbitration
suit was filed in the year 2015 and the same is numbered
as A.S.No.25004/2015. In the suit also, issues are framed
as whether the suit is in time and whether the plaintiff is
entitled for the relief sought. The Trial Court having
considered the grounds urged in the suit, taken note of
arbitration award was passed in 2010, the appellant had
knowledge of the same. Inspite of it, not made any
compliance of the award. In detail discussed for having
answered the point No.1 that suit is not in time. Taking
into note of provisions under Section 34(3) of Arbitration
Act, comes to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff in
A.S.No.25004/2015 has not filed the suit within time and
answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. Ultimately
dismissed the suit. Hence, the present Miscellaneous First
Appeal is filed before this Court.
5. The main contention of the counsel in this
appeal that this appellant is only a Director and not the
NC: 2024:KHC:7489
producer and ought to have made the claim against the
producer and not against the Director. The Arbitrator also
did not held any enquiry. The trial Judge also not held any
enquiry. The respondent No.2 who remained exparte
before the Trial Court as well as before the Arbitration
Board of Karnataka Film Chambers of Commerce as he is
the producer of future film ' Mohini ' and ought not to have
passed any award against this petitioner. The counsel also
would submits that no opportunity was given before the
Arbitrator and matter requires to be remanded to hold an
enquiry. The counsel also would submits that only the
knowledge which he had with regard to the reckons for the
commencement of limitation. Hence, it requires
interference.
6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondents would submits that this respondents
appeared before the Arbitration Board and specifically it is
mentioned that on 2 days the dates were fixed, the
appellant has appeared and earlier also he sought for time
in 2007 itself by writing letter seeking 15 days time and
NC: 2024:KHC:7489
not participated in the Arbitration. Now, the appellant
cannot contend that no opportunity is given. The counsel
also brought to notice of this Court, the Trial Court in
arbitration suit also taken note of the letter addressed
subsequent to the award passed by the appellant
requesting only to fix the liability on the respondent No.2
not on the appellant. Once he had the knowledge of the
award in the year 2010 itself. Now he cannot contend that
the arbitration suit dismissed erroneously.
7. The counsel for respondents also brought to
notice of this Court that the limitation is only for a period
of three months as envisaged under Section 34(3) of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Trial Court has
also taken note of the said fact into consideration and
rightly answered the point No.1 as negative, since he had
the knowledge of the award in the year 2010 itself and
hence reasoned order has been passed.
8. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the respondents and also on
perusal of the award passed by the Arbitration Court, i.e.,
NC: 2024:KHC:7489
Karntaka Film Chamber of Commerce,Bengaluru, it is
specifically mentioned that the notice has been issued. In
pursuance of the notice also, a letter was addressed on
20.08.2007 wherein they sought for 15 days time. In
paragraph No.7 of the order in Arbitration Case
No.24/2009 set-out the dates fixed for the consideration of
the arbitration i.e., almost 25 times and out of that this
appellant has also appeared before the Arbitration Board
on 03.06.2008 and as well as on 06.04.2009, the same is
also set-out in paragraph No.8. Thereafter he did not
participate in the proceedings which has taken place
before the Arbitration Board. Now, the appellant cannot
contend that no opportunity has been given to him. The
fact that the notice has been served to him by the
Arbitration Board is also not in dispute and also he did not
dispute the fact that he appeared twice and thereafter he
did not participate in the proceedings. The question of
giving an opportunity once again in 2024 when the
arbitration proceedings was taken place before the
Arbitration Board and question of remanding the matter as
NC: 2024:KHC:7489
contended by the appellant's counsel does not arise. With
regard to the finding of Trial Court that the suit is barred
by the limitation also, the Trial Court considered the award
dated 13.04.2010 and award was issued on 06.05.2010 in
paragraph No.9 and also in detail discussed the very
petitioner himself written a letter to the Secretary
(Producer Sector) Karnataka film Chambers of Commerce
on 27.05.2010, the same is also relied upon before the
Trial Court as per Annexure-E and so also written another
letter as per Annexure-F dated 30.08.2010. These
documents were also taken note of that the appellant is
having the knowledge about the earlier award. Consequent
upon the award also he addressed the letter. The Trial
Court also taken note of the very proviso Section 34(3) of
Arbitration and conciliation Act wherein if any application
for setting aside, may not be made after three months
have elapsed from the date on which the party making
that application had received the arbitral award or, if a
request had been made under Section 33, from the date
on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7489
tribunal. The fact that the execution petition filed is also
not in dispute. The counsel appearing for the respondents
also brought to notice of this Court when the execution
petition was filed and appellant immediately he gave the
complaint. The said case is also pending. The Court has to
take note of whether suit is filed within time and the
award was passed in the year 2010 and the suit was filed
in the year 2015. When such being the case, the Trial
Court has not committed any error in answering the point
No.1 in coming to the conclusion that the very suit itself is
barred by limitation and the same is filed almost after
lapse of 5 years of award passed by the Arbitration Board.
When such reasonings are given, question of interfering
with the findings of the award passed by the Arbitration
Board as well as the Arbitration suit does not arise. The
appellants left over more than 1 ½ decade when the claim
was made before the Arbitration Board and did not
participate and putforth his case and only he attended the
arbitration proceedings twice and thereafter he did not
attend the arbitration proceedings. The very contention
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7489
that the producer has to pay the amount and not the
appellant also cannot be considered in this appeal since no
such plea was set forth before the Arbitration Board.
Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHS
