[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Komala S.P vs Smt. Asha L Alias Asha Chetan Kumar on 9 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:51839-DB
COMAP No.458/2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.458/2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. KOMALA S.P.
D/O SRINIVASAPURA PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT. NO.36/1, 2ND FLOOR
11TH CROSS, IST MAIN
IST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
Digitally signed BANGALORE-560038.
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM
...APPELLANT
Location: High
Court Of (BY SRI. P.B. ACHAPPA, ADV.,)
Karnataka
AND:
1. SMT. ASHA L ALIAS ASHA CHETAN KUMAR
W/O SRI. CHETAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT. NO.14, KHB COLONY
JB KAVAL, CORPORATION WARD NO.10
KRISHNANANDA NAGAR
BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS
BANGALORE-560096.
2. MR. ABDUL KHADEER MOHAMAD ALI
S/O MR. ABDUL KHADEER
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/A NO.29, ERUMAPALAYAM
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:51839-DB
COMAP No.458/2022
HC-KAR
SALEM
TAMIL NADU-636015.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANAND S.G. ADV., FOR R1
R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V.C.O. DTD:29.11.2022)
---
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL/COMAP IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT ACTS, 2015,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN COM.O.S. NO.797 OF
2022 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE LXXXVI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE AND BE PLEASED TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 2 IN
COM.O.S NO.797/2022 BY THE LXXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE A AND ALLOW I.A NO.2 FILED BY THE APPELLANT
INVOKING SECTION 8 OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE B AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE PLAINT IN COM.O.S.NO.
797/2022. PASS ANY OTHER AND FURTHER AS DEEMED FIT
BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS COMAP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
02.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:51839-DB
COMAP No.458/2022
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 13(1-
A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging the order
dated 18.10.2022 passed on I.A.No.2 in Com.O.S.No.797/2022
by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH.No.87) (for short, 'Commercial Court').
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are
that the respondent No.1 filed a suit in Com.O.S. No.797/2022
against the appellant and another for recovery of
Rs.38,88,000/- and other reliefs. The appellant filed an
application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The
Commercial Court rejected the application under the impugned
order holding that the appellant has already filed
Com.O.S.No.945/2021 based on the agreement dated
03.08.2018 and the said suit is being adjudicated on merits and
filing of an application in a suit filed by the respondent No.1 has
no merit.
NC: 2025:KHC:51839-DB
HC-KAR
3. Sri.P.B.Achappa, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the Commercial Court has committed an
error by coming to the conclusion that the arbitration clause in
the sale agreement is subject to the amendment/transfer of the
lease agreement by the appellant and the respondent No.2 in
favour of the respondent No.1 and that the sale agreement is
ancillary to the lease deed. It is submitted that the scope of
the two suits is different. However, the Commercial court has
erred in coming to a conclusion that the scope of the two suits
is similar. The Commercial Court ought to have relegated the
parties to the arbitration proceedings and dismissed the suit.
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra Sri.Anand S.G., learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the order passed
by the Commercial Court and submits that the Commercial
Court has given detailed reasons and held that there cannot be
any adjudication of the same dispute in two different forums.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel
NC: 2025:KHC:51839-DB
HC-KAR
appearing for the respondent No.1, meticulously perused the
material available on record and have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced, judgments relied
and the material on record.
6. The point that arises for consideration is
"Whether the order dated 18.10.2022
passed by the Commercial Court on
I.A.No.2 warrants any interference"
7. The answer to the above point is in the negative for
the following reasons:
(a) The appellant along with the respondent No.2
established a saloon in the name of 'Purple Tree', where the
respondent No.1 joined as an employee. The respondent No.1
displayed interest to purchase the said saloon and the same
was accepted by the appellant. In lieu of the same, a sale
receipt dated 24.02.2018 was executed by the parties for a sale
consideration of Rs.68,00,000/- and after further negotiations,
the sale consideration was revised to Rs.56,00,000/- and an
agreement to the said effect was executed for the sale of stock-
in-trade, furniture and effects dated 03.08.2018. However, the
NC: 2025:KHC:51839-DB
HC-KAR
respondent No.1 failed to pay the balance sale consideration
and the Cheques issued by him were dishonored.
(b) The respondent No.2 filed a summary suit in
Com.O.S.No.945/2021 seeking recovery of money from the
respondent No.1. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 filed
Com.O.S.No.797/2022 seeking re-payment of Rs.27,00,000/-
along with interest paid to the appellant contending that the
agreement for sale of stock-in-trade, furniture and effects had
been cancelled by her vide e-mail dated 13.10.2018. In this
suit, the appellant filed an application invoking Section 8 of the
Act, seeking to dismiss the commercial suit and refer the
matter to arbitration.
(c) The Commercial Court, after considering the material
on record proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground
that the arbitration clause in the sale agreement was ancillary
to the lease agreement and by cogent reading of the clauses of
the agreement, it is clear that the appellant had agreed to
transfer the lease agreement dated 07.11.2018 executed
between the appellant and one Sri.S.Naga relating to a saloon
and if there is any disagreement between the parties to the
NC: 2025:KHC:51839-DB
HC-KAR
said agreement regarding the writing or the interpretation of
any clause of the agreement, then the matter will be referred
to the arbitration.
(d) The Commercial Court further recorded the finding
that it pre-supposes that there is a pre-condition fixed on the
defendant to get the lease deed transferred/amended and the
present agreement for sale of stock-in-trade, furniture etc. is
only ancillary to the lease agreement. The said finding is on
the interpretation of the clauses of both the agreements. The
Commercial Court further recorded the finding that the suit
filed by the appellant in Com.O.S.No.945/2021 and being a
party to the lease agreement has implicitly waived off the right
to invoke the arbitration clause. The said finding of fact by the
Commercial Court is based on the nature of the relief sought in
both the suits, clauses of the agreement and the covenants of
the lease agreement dated 07.11.2018 and the agreement
dated 03.08.2018. We do not find any error in the said finding
of the Commercial Court.
(e) It is noticed that the appellant and the respondents
are disputing their liability in their respective suits and the
NC: 2025:KHC:51839-DB
HC-KAR
dispute arises from the lease agreement dated 07.11.2018 and
the agreement of sale dated 03.08.2018, which are the subject
matters in the suit, filed by the appellant as well as the
respondent No.1 and the appellant having continued the suit
filed by him on its merit, cannot be allowed to raise any
objection of the proceedings in the suit filed by the respondent
No.1. We are also of the considered view that the scope of this
appeal is very limited and no finding of this Court in this case
shall come in the way of the Commercial Court from deciding
the suit on its merits. We do not find any error in the
observations made by the Commercial Court in the impugned
order calling for interference in this appeal.
The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is
accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
