[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Unishire Builders Private Limited vs Sri Syed Asif on 8 April, 2026

                                            -1-
                                                    NC: 2026:KHC:19437-DB
                                                     WP No. 2847 of 2025


               HC-KAR



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                        PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
                                            AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 2847 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
               BETWEEN:

               M/S UNISHIRE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,
               A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN
               COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND HAVING ITS
               REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.36,
               RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
               NEHRU NAGAR, KUMARA PARK WEST,
               BENGALURU - 560 020.

               PRESENTLY AT:
               NO.42, CASTLE STREET,
               ASHOK NAGAR,
               BENGALURU - 560 025.
Digitally      REPRESENTED BY
signed by
               ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
REKHA R
               SRI. PRATIK K. MEHTA.
Location:
High Court                                                  ...PETITIONER
of Karnataka   (BY SRI. G S VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE)
               AND:

               1.    SRI. SYED ASIF,
                     S/O. LATE SYED ABDUL SATTAR,
                     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

               2.    SMT. NASREEN ASIF
                     W/O. SRI.SYED ASIF,
                     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
                              -2-
                                    NC: 2026:KHC:19437-DB
                                     WP No. 2847 of 2025


HC-KAR



3.   SRI. SYED ABDULLA,
     S/O. SRI. SYED ASIF,
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

4.   MS. SAKINA SYED ASIF,
     D/O. SRI. SYED ASIF,
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

5.   SRI. SYED UMAR ASIF,
     S/O. SRI. SYED ASIF,
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

6.   MS. AYESHA ASIF,
     D/O.SRI. SYED ASIF,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

     RESIDING AT NO.14,
     PARK ROAD,
     TASKER TOWN,
     BANGALORE - 560 052.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HEGDE SHRIPAD GANGADHAR,
    ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED:21.01.2025 PASSED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR
HON'BLE JUSTICE V JAGANNATHAN ON IA FILED UNDER
SECTION 5 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILLIATION ACT
1996 READ WITH SECTION 10 OF CPC, IN A.C.NO.72/2024,
VIDE ANNEXURE-'A' AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                      -3-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC:19437-DB
                                                   WP No. 2847 of 2025


    HC-KAR



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
       and
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF


                              ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

The petitioners are before us in this Writ Petition filed

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,

calling in question the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by

the sole Arbitrator on Interlocutory application filed under

Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961

R/w Section 10 of CPC, in A.C No.72/2024 (Annexure-A).

2. Under the impugned order, the sole arbitrator

rejected the application in view of the observation made

by this Court in Paragraph Nos.4, 6, 7 and 9 of its order in

CMP No.6767/2022.

3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings

before the Arbitrator.

4. The respondent filed an application under

Section 5 of A & C Act, 1996 R/w Section 10 of CPC

A & C Act, 1966

NC: 2026:KHC:19437-DB

HC-KAR

seeking to stay all further proceedings before the

Arbitrator on account of suit instituted in OS No.292/2023

pending on the file of City Civil Court in respect of the

subject matter of the present arbitral proceedings.

5. Before the Arbitrator, the respondent submitted

that during the pendency of CMP No.767/2022 before this

Court, the claimant had executed a registered Gift Deed

dated 09.08.2022, in respect of the subject matter of Joint

Development Agreement dated 13.11.2013. Therefore, the

comprehensive suit for declaration and other claims has

been filed in O.S No.2922/2023 and the same is pending

consideration. It was further submitted that the subject

matter in the suit as well as the arbitration proceedings

being one and the same, the application is filed. The

claimants in the arbitral proceedings filed an application

for rejection of plaint and the suit, which came to be

dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2024. In these

circumstances, it is just and necessary to stay the arbitral

proceedings till the rights of the parties, which is also

NC: 2026:KHC:19437-DB

HC-KAR

substantially an issue in the suit filed by the respondent is

adjudicated. In the light of the above submissions,

referring to Section 10 of CPC and also relying on the

judgment of Delhi High Court reported in (2022) 1 HCC

(Delhi) submitted that, since the suit was filed earlier to

arbitral proceedings, it is necessary to stay all further

proceedings before the Arbitrator.

6. The claimant opposed the contentions raised

contending that all these contentions have already been

considered by the High Court while disposing of the CMP

and appointing the sole Arbitrator. Section 10 of CPC is not

applicable in view of express provision contained in A & C

Act, 1966. The challenge to order in CMP 767/2022 by the

present respondent unsuccessfully before the Supreme

Court. It is further submitted that on the submissions of

the claimant, this Court in CMP at paragraph No.9 has

considered that in view of 'unequivocal and categorical

statement before the Court, which is taken on record to

ensure that it prevails with all its import, is that the

NC: 2026:KHC:19437-DB

HC-KAR

petitioners are willing to state that their respective rights

under the Gift Deed dated 19.08.2022 will be subject to

adjudication of the petitioner's right in the arbitral

proceedings' and accordingly, appointed the sole

Arbitrator.

7. The Arbitral Tribunal2 upon consideration of

rival submissions, importing Section 5 of the A & C Act, in

the order, formed an opinion that the order passed by the

High Court in the CMP in view of dismissal of the SLP

attained finality, therefore it is not open to the respondent

to agitate the very same ground which he has already

taken and considered by this Court in the CMP stated

supra and holding that both the proceedings i.e., Arbitral

proceedings and the Original Suit are entirely on different

question and since Section 10 of CPC has no application to

the arbitral proceedings, rejected the application. It is this

order passed by the AT is called in question in this Writ

Petition.

'AT' for short

NC: 2026:KHC:19437-DB

HC-KAR

8. Heard, Sri.G.S.Venkata Subbarao, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Hegde Shripad

Gangadhar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1

to 3.

9. Though Sri.Venkata Subbarao, tried to submit

on the merits of the case but on the query by us in respect

of preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this

Writ Petition against arbitral proceedings i.e., supervisory

jurisdiction of the High Court over arbitral proceedings

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, relied on the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SEROSOFT

SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DEXTER CAPITAL

ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED3, to contend that the

High Court has got supervisory jurisdiction over the

arbitral proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India. He referred to Paragraph No.14 of the Judgment

to contend that interference is permissible under certain

circumstances.

2025 SCC OnLine SC 22

NC: 2026:KHC:19437-DB

HC-KAR

10. We have gone through the Judgment. In

Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the Judgment, the Apex Court

has observed as under:

"14. In any event of the matter when the Arbitral Tribunal by its order dated 09.10.2024 held - 'that far and no further', to the respondent/claimant's endeavour to cross-examine RW-1, the High Court should have restrained itself from interfering. In order to justify its interference and extension of time, the High Court has referred to and relied on a judgment of the same Court1. Certain conditions for exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 are mentioned in the judgment. Conditions (v) and (vi) of the said judgment could have provided sufficient guidance for the High Court to consider whether interference is warranted or not. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:-

"(v) Interference is permissible only if the order is completely perverse i.e. that the perversity must stare in the face.

(vi) High Courts ought to discourage litigation which necessarily interfere with the arbitral process.

(vii) Excessive judicial interference in the arbitral process is not encouraged.

(viii) It is prudent not to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226/227.

(ix) The power should be exercised in 'exceptional rarity' or if there is 'bad faith' which is shown.

(x) Efficiency of the arbitral process ought not to be allowed to diminish and hence

NC: 2026:KHC:19437-DB

HC-KAR

interdicting the arbitral process should be completely avoided."

15. It is evident from the above that even as per the quote hereinabove interference Under Article 226/227 is 'permissible only if the order is completely perverse i.e. that the perversity must stare in the face.' Condition (vi) to (x) underscores the reason why High Courts ought not to interfere with orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals for more than one reason."

11. It is clear from Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 that,

the party must make out a case of perversity in the order

i.e., perversity must stare on the face to exercise the

supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. In the absence of such perversity,

which is staring in the face of it, the High Courts must be

loath in interfering with the orders passed by the Arbitral

Tribunals exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article

227.

12. To the query, Sri.G.S.Venkata Subba Rao, is

unable to make out any perversity on the face of it in the

order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. In that view of the