Karnataka High Court
Sri S V Rajendra Singh Babu vs M/S Navashakthi Enterprises on 20 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7707
RP No. 214 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO.214 OF 2024
IN
M.F.A.NO.16/2024 (AA)
BETWEEN:
SRI S V RAJENDRA SINGH BABU
AGED 72 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHANKAR SINGH,
R/AT C/O S PRATIMA DEVI
NO.2961/21, 1ST,MAIN ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE 570009
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G R MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. M/S NAVASHAKTHI ENTERPRISES
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI C NAGARAJ
S/O NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OFFICE AT CASINO BUILDING 2ND FLOOR
2ND CROSS, GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560009
2. M/S SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA
ARTS PVT LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7707
RP No. 214 of 2024
REP BY ITS PARTNERS
SRI A MOHAN
S/O NOT KNOWN,
NO.31, GROUND FLOOR, 166TH MAIN
39TH CROSS, 'T' BLOCK, M R LAYOUT,
BENGALURU -560041,
AND ALSO AT NO.442
1ST FLOOR, DIAGONAL ROAD,
V V PURAM, BENGALURU 560004
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAGHUNATHA K, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DT.25.01.2025 ISSUANCE OF NOTICE
TO R2 IS NOT NEEDED)
THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 READ
WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2024 PASSED IN MFA
NO.16/2024 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that there was a plea in the MFA with
NC: 2025:KHC:7707
regard to deposit of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in terms
of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.48833/2016
dated 14.09.2022 and this Court while disposing of MFA,
not touched upon the said point for consideration and
hence, this Court has to review the order dated
22.02.2024 and also brought to notice of this Court
paragraph 12 of the grounds urged in the MFA and
contend that the said amount is lying in the Trial Court
while dismissing the suit only on the ground of limitation
and hence, this Court has to review the order passed by
this Court.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent by filing objection statement would
vehemently contend that respondent No.1 filed an
Ex.P.No.2426/2012 against the petitioner herein for
recovery of amount awarded in Arbitration Case
No.24/2009 by the Arbitration Board of Karnataka Film
Chamber of Commerce, Bengaluru. After service of notice
in execution petition, the Court issued an order of
NC: 2025:KHC:7707
attachment of movables. On 22.09.2015, respondent and
Court bailiff entered into the house of petitioner, at that
instance, to stop the execution of the order of attachment,
petitioner's son voluntarily issued post-dated Cheque
towards the attachment amount of Rs.7,20,053/- and the
said Cheque came to be dishonoured on its presentation
and hence, case has been registered in C.C.No.813/2016
wherein conviction order was passed and appeal was
preferred and the same is posted for judgment. The
petitioner herein also preferred A.S.No.25004/2015 on
30.11.2015 and I.A. came to be dismissed by the Civil
Court and then the petitioner herein preferred
W.P.No.48833/2016, wherein stayed the proceedings of
C.C.No.813/2016. On 29.05.2017, petitioner counsel
submits that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- would be deposited
before the jurisdictional Court. In the light of the said
submission, this Court continued the order dated
18.10.2016 until further orders, subject to deposit of the
said amount. The respondent herein filed I.A.No.1/2018
for release of the said deposited amount in
NC: 2025:KHC:7707
W.P.No.48833/2016, the same was disposed on
14.09.2022, then A.S.No.25004/2016 dismissed on
29.11.2023 itself. Against that order, the petitioner herein
preferred an appeal in MFA No.16/2024 and the same was
dismissed during the admission on 22.02.2024. The
petitioner presently preferred the said review petition with
the contention that the petitioner deposited an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- and respondent No.1 has taken entire
award amount together with interest by way of Cheque
from petitioner's son. In view of the fact that the entire
award has been satisfied by the petitioner by way of
depositing a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- before the Trial Court
and the Cheque issued by the petitioner's son in favour of
respondent No.1was not honoured and the petitioner
herein is misrepresented the facts and the Court
reprimanded the petitioner by imposing exemplary cost.
When such being the case, the question of reviewing the
order does not arise.
NC: 2025:KHC:7707
4. Having considered the grounds urged in the
petition as well as in the objections and also considering
the factual aspects of the case, it discloses that this Court
considered the appeal on merits and passed an order
particularly with regard to the issue of limitation and made
an observation that the appellants slept over more than
1½ decade when the claim was made before the
Arbitration Board and did not participate and put forth his
case and only he attended the arbitration proceedings
twice and thereafter, he did not attend the arbitration
proceedings. When such order is passed by this Court in
coming to the conclusion that when the claim was made
and same was dismissed on the ground of limitation and
even though said ground was urged before this Court
regarding deposit of amount is concerned and when the
issue is with regard to limitation is concerned, this Court
considered the same, particularly, the Trial Court also
taken note of the very proviso of Section 34(3) of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act wherein if any application
for setting aside, may not be made after three months
NC: 2025:KHC:7707
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
tribunal and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court
not committed any error in considering the issue of
limitation is concerned. When issue of limitation is
considered by this Court, the question of reviewing the
order in view of the contention taken by the petitioner's
counsel does not arise. The counsel for respondent No.1
submits that even any such amount is deposited, he is
going to file an application to withdraw the said amount
and hence, he can withdraw the said amount. With this
observation, the review petition is disposed of.
Sd/
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
