Karnataka High Court
Smt Shreyas Shibulal vs M/S Total Environment Projects India ... on 18 February, 2025
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7097
WP No. 4758 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4758 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHREYAS SHIBULAL
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O SRI S D SHIBULAL
2. SMT. BHAIRAVI MADHUSUDHAN SHIBULAL
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
W/O SRI. SHREYAS SHIBULAL
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 383
42ND CROSS, 9TH MAIN
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU 560 041
BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI. MADHUSUDHAN SRINIVASAN
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
HEMALATHA A S/O LATE K. SRINIVASAN
Location: HIGH R/AT VILLA NO. 9, AKSHAYA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA WHITEFIELD HOSKOTE MAIN ROAD
KANNAMANGALA POST
BENGALURU 560 067.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SAMMITH. S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT PROJECTS
(INDIA) PVT LTD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7097
WP No. 4758 of 2025
INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
2. M/S SHIBANEE & KAMAL ARCHITECTS LLP
(FORMERLY, M/S SHIBANEE AND KAMAL
ARCHITECTS)
INCORPORATED UNDER LIMITED
LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008
BOTH RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 HAVING
THEIR OFFICE AT "IMAGINE", NO. 78
ITPL ROAD, EPIP ZONE, WHITEFIELD
BANGALORE-560 066.
BOTH 1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY ITS
DESIGNATED PARTNER & AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY MR. KAMAL SAGAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL &
SRI. C K NANDA KUMAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MOHAMMED SAMEER., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & 2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS IN COM.AA 93/2025 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-83) AND
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 14.02.2025
PASSED IN IA NO. 1 AND 2 UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 R/W ORDER
XXXIX, RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, BY THE LEARNED LXXXII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE (CCH-83) IN COM.AA.93/2025 AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:7097
WP No. 4758 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated
14.02.2025 passed by the LXXXII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, in
Com.A.A.No.93/2025.
2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding
the maintainability of writ petition and has contended that
the impugned order dated 14.02.2025, which is challenged
in this writ petition is passed on applications filed under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for
short 'the Act'). There is a remedy of appeal under Section
37 of the Act against an order granting or refusing
ex-parte interim measure on an application filed under
Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, this writ petition is not
NC: 2025:KHC:7097
maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied
upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in
Com.Appeal.No.56/2024 dated 19.07.2024.
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners has contended that only against an order
granting or refusing an ex-parte interim order, an appeal
under Section 37 of the Act is maintainable. In the case on
hand, after appearance of respondent before the Trial
Court and before filing the objections, the impugned order
has been passed. The application is not yet disposed of. In
that case, the remedy of appeal under Section 37 of the
Act does not arise. Hence, the writ petition is
maintainable.
4. The Division Bench of this Court in
Com.Appeal.No.56/2024 disposed of on 19.07.2024 has
held that the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable against an order
granting or refusing ex-prate interim measure under
NC: 2025:KHC:7097
Section 9 of the Act, 1996. Paragraph-29 of the said
judgment is relevant and is extracted hereunder:
"29. Conclusions on the question of law.
(a) The appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is
maintainable against an order granting or
refusing ex-parte interim measure under Section
9 of the Act, 1996, even if the Section 9
application is filed before the Commercial Court,
as defined under Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(b) As a corollary, appeal under Section 37 of
the Act, 1996 is maintainable against an order
granting or refusing ex-parte interim measure
under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, if the Section 9
application is filed before the Court exercising
jurisdiction under the Act, 1996.
(c) xxxxxxx
(d) xxxxxxx
(e) xxxxxxx"
5. In view of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act and
the judgment of this Court rendered in
Com.Appeal.No.56/2024, any order passed under Section
9 of the Act, appeal under Section 37 of the Act is
maintainable.
NC: 2025:KHC:7097
6. In the present case, the order under challenge is
passed on an application filed under Section 9 of the Act.
Therefore, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this
Court rendered in Com.Appeal.No.56/2024 disposed of on
19.07.2024, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
8. It is made clear that this order will not come in the
way of petitioners approaching the appropriate legal
forum.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
DM
