[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Khaja Miyan S/O Ladle Patel vs M/S Sri Ram Investment Ltd And Ors on 12 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:157
MFA No. 202108 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202108 OF 2016 (AA)
BETWEEN:
KHAJA MIYAN S/O LADLE PATEL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
RO. H NO 7-966, NEAR JAWAR-E-HIND SCHOOL,
HAJ COMMITTEE, MOMINPURA,
KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. SRI RAM INVESTMENT LTD.,
AMALGATED WITH
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE SRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SHARADA RESIDENCY COURT ROAD,
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI.
PRESENTLY AT KANDOOR MALL, SV PATEL CHOWK,
STATION BAZAR ROAD, KALABURAGI-585101.
2. M/S. SRI RAM INVESTMENT LTD.,
AMALGATED WITH
SRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NO.123, ANAGAPPA NACKEN STREET,
CHENNAI.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:157
MFA No. 202108 of 2016
HC-KAR
3. YASHWANTH KUMAR B.,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE AND
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
NO.23/A, HOSPITAL ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NARENDRA M. BETTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
R3 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1) (c) OF THE
ARBITRARTION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO A)
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND
ORDER DATED 28.06.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN ARBITRATION
APPLICATION NO.2/2010, DISMISSING THE SAID APPLICATION
AND CONFIRMING THE AWARD DATED 02.08 2010 PASSED BY
THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN ARBITRATION CASE
NO 8/2007; B) ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION, AND ALSO THE
CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IN SAID ARBITRATION CASE
NO.8/2007 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN WITH COSTS
THROUGHOUT. C) SUCH FURTHER OF OTHER RELIEFS BE
GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT TO WHICH HE WOULD BE FOUND
ENTITLED TO ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in
Arbitration Application No.2/2010, challenging the
judgment dated 28.06.2016, on the file of learned
NC: 2026:KHC-K:157
HC-KAR
Principal District Judge at Kalaburagi, dismissing the
arbitration application.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties in the
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the District Court.
3. The appellant herein has initiated arbitration
dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal at Bengaluru under
Sections 7 and 8 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Arbitration Case
No.8/2007. The said arbitration proceedings came to be
dismissed by the learned Arbitrator. Feeling aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner has filed an application under
Section 34 of the Act in Arbitration Application No.2/2010
before the learned Principal District Judge at Kalaburagi.
The learned District Judge, after considering the material
record, dismissed the application vide judgment dated
28.06.2016. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:157
HC-KAR
appellant/petitioner has preferred this appeal under
Section 37 of the Act.
4. Heard Sri A.M.Biradar, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri Narendra M.
Bettad, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
5. Sri A.M.Biradar, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant/petitioner has invited the attention of the
Court to the finding recorded by the learned Arbitrator on
issue No.3, wherein, the learned Arbitrator has negatived
the contention of the respondents therein that the claim
petition filed by the appellant/petitioner is barred by
limitation. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant/petitioner, refers to the point for
consideration at serial No.3, wherein, the Appellate Court,
dismissed the arbitration application, holding that the
arbitrator has assigned cogent and sufficient reasons as to
the passing of the award of dismissal on the ground of
NC: 2026:KHC-K:157
HC-KAR
limitation. Therefore, it is contented by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant that, as the
respondents before the learned Arbitrator, have failed to
prove that the arbitration proceedings is barred by
limitation and therefore, the learned District Judge has
committed an error in answering point No.3 in Arbitration
Application No.2/2010 and accordingly, sought for
interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, Sri Narendra M. Bettad, the learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to
justify the impugned judgment passed by the District
Judge in Arbitration Application No.2/2010.
7. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned
Arbitrator has framed issue No.3, which reads as under:
Whether the respondents prove that the
claim is barred by the limitation?
NC: 2026:KHC-K:157
HC-KAR
8. In this regard, the discussion at paragraph
Nos.12 to 14 of the Arbitration Case would indicate that
the learned Arbitrator has arrived at a conclusion at
paragraph No.14 that the Limitation Act is not applicable
in the proceedings, as the claim made by the
petitioner/appellant herein, shall come within the purview
of sufficient cause and as such claim petition is within the
limits of Limitation Act and therefore, negatived the
contention of the respondents therein, however, the claim
petition was dismissed by the learned Arbitrator.
9. In the background of these aspects, the point
for consideration in Arbitration Application No.2/2010
reads as under:
Whether the Tribunal was justified in
holding that the claim of the petitioner is barred
by limitation?
10. Looking into the reasons assigned by the
learned District Judge in Arbitration Application No.2/2010,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:157
HC-KAR
which runs contrary to the finding recorded by the learned
Arbitrator at paragraph No.14 of the Arbitral Case and as
such, I find force in the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner that the
matter requires to be remitted to the learned District
Judge to rehear the matter afresh and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law. I am also conscious of the
fact that the provision contained under Section 34 of the
Act is having limited jurisdiction for the District Court to
interfere with the finding recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal,
however, taking into consideration the reasons assigned
by the Arbitral Tribunal at paragraph No.14, the District
Judge has committed an error in answering point for
consideration at serial No.3, which is apparent on the
record itself.
11. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:157
HC-KAR
II. The order dated 28.06.2016 passed in
Arbitration Application No.2/2010 by the learned
Principal District Judge at Kalaburagi is hereby
set aside and the matter is remitted to the
District Court for fresh consideration in the light
of the observations made above and also
consider the other points for consideration
referred to in paragraph No.8 of the impugned
judgment, while disposing of the petition.
III. The District Judge is requested to expedite the
hearing. As the parties are appeared before this
Court through their learned counsels and in
order to avoid further delay in the matter, the
parties are directed to appear before the learned
District Judge at Kalaburagi on 10.02.2026 at
11.00 a.m.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
Ct:pk
