Karnataka High Court
S. Ramachandra Reddy vs The Managing Director on 22 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15241
MFA No. 101728 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101728 OF 2021 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
S. RAMACHANDRA REDDY S/O. LATE. S. PARVATHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O: S.G.JUNIOR COLLEGE ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI - 583 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G. Q. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,
NO.21, PATULLOS ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 002.
2. S. MAHESH, SOLE ARBITRATOR/ADVOCATE,
R/O: OLD NO.152, NEW NO.315,
THAMBU CHETTY STREET,
Digitally signed 4TH FLOOR, CHENNAI - 600 001.
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: High 3. G. SATHYANARAYANA S/O. LATE. GAVIYANNA,
Court of
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O: D. NO.20/A248, M.V.NAGAR,
7TH CROSS, BALLARI - 583 102.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER
43 RULE 1(D) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER 13.04.2016, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI MADE IN MISC. CASE
NO.23/2016, AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2021, PASSED BY
THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI MADE
MISC. CASE NO.39/2017 AND FURTHER TO RESTORE THE
ARBITRATION SUIT 05/2015 TO ITS ORIGINAL FILE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15241
MFA No. 101728 of 2021
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE ,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present appeal is filed by plaintiff No.1
challenging the order dated 24.03.2021 passed in
Miscellaneous No.39/2017 by the Court of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Ballari1.
2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration
of the present appeal are that the appellant herein and
respondent No.3 availed credit facilities under the loan
agreement dated 14.01.2008 from respondent No.1
herein. Due to the default committed under the said loan
agreement, respondent No.1 instituted arbitration
proceedings, whereunder respondent No.2 herein was
appointed as the Arbitrator, consequent to which,
respondent No.2 passed the award. The appellant
preferred A.S.No.5/2015 to set aside the award passed by
Hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15241
the Arbitrator. The said petition was dismissed on
17.02.2016 for non-prosecution. To recall the said order of
dismissal passed in A.S.No.5/2015, the appellant preferred
Miscellaneous Case No.23/2016. However, the same was
dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.04.2016. To recall
the said order dated 13.04.2016 passed in Miscellaneous
Case No.23/2016, the appellant preferred Miscellaneous
No.39/2017.
3. The respondent No.1 entered appearance
before the Trial Court and contested the said proceedings.
The Trial Court by its order dated 24.03.2021 dismissed
the said Miscellaneous No.39/2017 holding, inter alia, that
there are no bona fide reasons made out to set aside the
order of dismissal passed in Miscellaneous Case
No.23/2016. It has been further noticed by the Trial Court
that the petition in Miscellaneous No.39/2017 was filed
after a lapse of more than 380 days of dismissal of
Miscellaneous Case No.23/2016. The Trial Court has also
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15241
noticed the merits of the case put forth and has dismissed
Miscellaneous No.39/2017.
4. Although the appellant has filed the appeal
alleging various grounds, including that the arbitral award
passed by the sole Arbitrator is one having been rendered
ex-parte, it is clear from the factual matrix as noticed
above that the appellant has not effectively prosecuted the
Miscellaneous Case No.23/2016 and no grounds have been
made out to recall the dismissal of the said petition.
5. In view of the aforementioned, the appellant
has failed in demonstrating that the order passed by the
Trial Court is in any manner erroneous and liable to be
interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.
6. Hence, the above appeal is dismissed as being
devoid of merit.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SH, CT-ASC
