[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Scarpe Marketing Private Limited vs Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited on 6 January, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO. 27708 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SCARPE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,
(A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013),
E-MAIL: [email protected],
PHONE NO: 94554 41006,
FLAT NO.4B, RAMA CLASSIC 9,
SHILPI VALLEY, GAFOOR NAGAR, MADHAPUR,
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 081,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SHRI. S.V.BAPUJI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
2. SHRI. SATHISH BABU SANA,
S/O. LATE SHRI SANA SUBBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
E-MAIL: [email protected],
PHONE NO: 6309996766
VILLA NO. 72, HILL RIDGE VILLAS, GACHIBOWLI,
BESIDE INDIAN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS,
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA -500 032.
3. SHRI. S.V.BAPUJI,
S/O. SATYANARAYANA S,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
E-MAIL: [email protected],
PHONE : 9945541006,
H.NO. 301, SRINIVASAM,
KPHB, 6TH PHASE, KUKATPALLY,
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 072.
4. SHRI. S.GURUJU,
S/O. G PRATAP KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2
E-MAIL: [email protected],
PHONE: 9581201111,
FLAT NO.504, BLOCK-1, SWATHI HEIGHTS,
PRASHANT NAGAR COLONY, A S RAO NAGAR,
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 062.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.SANTOSH SAGAR KAPILAVAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LIMITED,
(A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
E-MAIL : [email protected],
PHONE N/A UNIT NO.301-302, DYNASTY BUSINESS
PARK 'B' WING, 3RD FLOOR, ANDHERI KURLA
ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST),
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400 059.
2. EAST GODAVARI BREWERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,
(CURRENTLY UNDER CORPORATE INSOLVENCY
RESOLUTION PROCESS),
REPRESENTED BY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL,
E-MAIL: [email protected]
PHONE: 9248123333
4TH FLOOR, PLOT NO.12, PHASE III,
ROAD NO.82, JUBILEE HILLS,
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 033.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A CERTIORARI OR AN ORDER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING No. NIL
DATED 30.07.2025 IN THE MATTER OF ANHEUSER BUSCH
INBEV INDIA LIMITED Vs EAST GODAVARI BREWERIES
PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS PASSED BY THE ARBITRAL
TRIBUNAL IN ANNEXURE-A FOR BEING ILLEGAL ARBITRARY
UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, ALONG WITH THE ATTENDANT
ACTIONS (2) ISSUE A MANDAMUS OR AN ORDER WRIT, OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO
TAKE ON RECORD THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF
RESPONDENT No-1 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH
THE APPLICATION BEARING No.NIL DATED 10.07.2025 IN
ANNEXURE-J AND ADJUDICATE THE ARBITRATION
PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE OF LAW. (3) GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEF AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND FURTHER
ORDERS THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT
INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.09.2025, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, JAYANT
BANERJI J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. This petition has been filed challenging an
order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in
the matter of Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited V.
East Godavari Breweries Private Limited & Ors.
Further, direction has been sought from the Arbitral
Tribunal to take on record the Financial Statements of
Respondent No.1 filed by the petitioners along with the
application bearing No.Nil dated 10.07.2025 at
Annexure-J.
3. The petitioners are the respondents in the
aforesaid arbitration proceedings. The respondent
No.2/East Godavari Breweries Private Limited, is stated to
be undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution
proceedings. A Brewing Agreement was executed between
SABMiller India Limited (now called Anheuser Busch InBev
India Ltd) and the respondent No.2 that is East Godavari
Breweries Private Limited. On 06.02.2015, for setting up
of a brewery in Chepuru Village, Andhra Pradesh, for
manufacturing and sale of bottled beers of the following
brands-Haywards 5000, Knock Out, Foster's, Royal
Challenge ("Core Brands"). The Brewing Agreement was
further modified on 08.05.2015. An advance sum was paid
to the respondent No.2, who was required to obtain
licenses/permission and set up the brewery.
4. On 11.11.2016, on account of SABMiller's
acquisition by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2
was asked to stop working on the project until further
instructions. Accordingly, all ongoing operations were
paused. After more than 20 months, on 03.08.2018, the
respondent No.1 issued a notice for termination of the
Brewing Agreement to the respondent No.2 and
demanded the return of the advanced amount paid under
the Brewing Agreement along with an interest of 18%.
The respondent No.2 denied the allegation made in the
letter of termination by way of a reply dated 06.09.2018
and called upon the respondent No.1 to reimburse the
expenditure incurred by the respondent No.2.
5. A notice of invocation of guarantee dated
23.08.2018 was issued to the petitioners on the allegation
that petitioners had agreed to guarantee the repayment of
advance, the alleged guarantee was denied. Thereafter,
the Arbitration was invoked under the Brewing Agreement
by the respondent No.1 against the respondent No.2, and
the petitioners, though not being signatories/parties to the
Brewing Agreement, came to be added as parties to the
arbitration proceedings in their capacity as alleged
guarantors.
6. In proceedings under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by an order dated
31.03.2021, arbitrators were appointed by this Court. This
stood constituted with effect from 01.05.2021. On account
of the demise of an arbitrator, another arbitrator was
appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator.
7. The statement of claim was filed on 30.06.2021
along with 32 supporting documents. It is alleged that
thereafter, without the leave of the Arbitral Tribunal, on
20.08.2021 two additional documents were placed on
record. Lastly, on 03.09.2021, the respondent No.1-
claimant once again filed 4 additional documents in the
nature of financial statements of the respondent No.2,
without leave of the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 filed a
counter claim and the petitioners filed their statement of
defence. The pleadings were completed on 20.11.2021
and thereafter, the Arbitral Tribunal framed issues on
12.07.2022 which were modified by way of order of the
Arbitral Tribunal dated 03.08.2022.
8. In the meanwhile, an application under Section
9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the
National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravathi, admitted an
application under Section 9 on 17.11.2021 and inter alia,
declared a moratorium. However, the Arbitral Tribunal, by
an order of 16.02.2022, held that the arbitration
proceedings would continue against the petitioners herein.
It is contended that in the light of the order of
16.02.2022, the burden of defending the claim of
respondent No.1 has now fallen on the petitioners, who
are stated to be the guarantors.
9. After the extension of the mandate of the
Arbitral Tribunal, dates were fixed for recording of
evidence of the witnesses. Witnesses of the parties were
examined on multiple dates from 15.05.2025 to
04.07.2025.
10. During the cross-examination held on
15.05.2025 of the fact witnesses of respondent No.1,
certain questions were posed to the CW1, inter alia,
regarding the date of takeover of SABMiller by Anheuser
Busch InBev India Ltd., and the claims of respondent
No.1. It is stated that the CW-1 expressed his ignorance
in respect of most of the queries. Moreover, the expert
witness who testified as CW-2, filed a report in support of
the monetary claims of the respondent No.1, and his
cross-examination was held on 26.06.2025.
11. It is contended by the learned counsel that the
answers to the queries posed were evasive. It is
contended that though the CW-2 admitted having placed
reliance on the financial statements of respondent No.1 for
arriving at the computation of damages at the figure after
computation of the damages, however, the financial
statements were either filed by respondent No.1 or CW-2.
The petitioners then obtained the financial statements of
the respondent No.1, from the website of the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs.
12. The contention is that in view of the various
inconsistent and fallacious statements made by the CW1
and CW2, which could be established through the financial
statements, on 04.07.2025, the petitioners sought to file a
compilation of financial statements of the respondent No.1
for different periods of time, as Annexures R(2)-D11 to
R(2)-D13. Since the Arbitral Tribunal refused to accept the
same in the absence of an application to place these
documents on record, an application was filed by the
petitioners seeking leave of the Arbitral Tribunal, under
the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil
Procedure,19081 for bringing those documents on record.
13. On 19.07.2025, the respondent No.1 filed its
reply to the application. By means of the impugned order,
that application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC has
been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
relied upon the provision of Section 18 of the Act, 1996, to
contend that by rejecting the application for leave, the
Arbitral Tribunal has denied equality to the parties. It is
stated that additional documents were filed by the
claimant/respondent No.1 by means of e-mail and they
were accepted on record. However, when it came to the
case of the petitioners, equal treatment was denied by
rejecting the aforesaid application.
14. Learned counsel has referred to certain
judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of
CPC
Wadi V. Amilal and Others2 and Sugandhi (Dead) by
Legal Representatives and Another V. R.Rajkumar,
Represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli3, , to
contend that procedural and technical hurdles ought not to
be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing
substantial justice, the Courts must lean towards doing
substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and
technical violations.
15. A judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Agro Industries
Development Corporation Limited V. Murliwala
Agrotech Private Limited and Others4, which relates to
a matter arising out of the rejection of an application
under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the CPC and Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC in arbitration proceedings, has also been
relied upon to contend that an amendment has to be
construed liberally and given the time frame of the
proceedings, the application for amendment/Order VIII
Rule 1A of the CPC was wrongly rejected.
(2015) 1 SCC 677
(2020) 10 SCC 706
2025 SCC Online MP 2360
16. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Bhaven Construction Through Authorised
Signatory Premjibhai K.Shah Vs. Executive Engineer,
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and
Another5, has been relied upon to contend that the
instant case is one of those rare and exceptional cases in
which interference under Article 227 of the Constitution
may be made by this Court.
17. As it appears from the record of this petition,
on an application moved under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19966 by an order dated
31.03.2021 this Court appointed two retired judges of the
Supreme Court as arbitrators, who in turn nominated
another retired judge of the Supreme Court as the
presiding arbitrator. The Arbitral Tribunal stood
constituted with effect from 01.05.2021. However, on
account of demise of the presiding arbitrator, the
remaining arbitrators nominated another retired judge of
the Supreme Court as the presiding arbitrator.
(2022) 1 SCC 75
Act of 1996
18. The respondent No.1-claimant filed its
statement of claim on 30.06.2021 along with documents.
The petitioners filed their statement of defence and the
respondent No.2 filed a counter claim. The pleadings were
completed on 20.11.2021 and issues were framed on
12.07.2022 which were modified on 03.08.2022. On
account of expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal
under Section 29A of the Act 1996, an application was
filed by the respondent No.1 before the Commercial Court
concerned, seeking extension of the mandate of the
Arbitral Tribunal, which application was allowed by an
order dated 10.09.2024 by the Commercial Court,
extending the mandate of the Tribunal by one year.
19. The witnesses of the parties were examined on
multiple dates from 15.05.2025 to 04.07.2025. It is stated
on behalf of the petitioners that during the cross-
examination of the CW-2, reliance was placed by the CW-
2 on certain financial statements of the respondent No.1
for arriving at the computation of damages. It is alleged
that no financial statements were filed either by the
respondent No.1 or CW-2. Thereafter the petitioners
obtained the financial statements of the respondent No.1
from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is
stated that on perusal of the financial statements it was
evident that the CW-1 and CW-2 had made various
inconsistent and fallacious statements which can be
established through the financial statements. Therefore,
on 04.07.2025, the petitioners sought to file a compilation
of financial statements of the respondent No.1 for the
period 01.04.2016 uptil 31.03.2019. This was refused to
be accepted by the Arbitral Tribunal in the absence of an
application to place on record these documents. Then, an
application was filed by the petitioners under Order VIII
Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure on 10.07.2025.
A reply was filed by the respondent No.1 and thereafter
the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 was passed.
20. The Arbitral Tribunal in its impugned order,
noted the issues framed by it on 12.07.2022 and the fact
that by that very order, it had directed the parties to file
lists of witnesses on or before 27.07.2022 and
simultaneously file affidavits of evidence of their witnesses
on 24.08.2022. The claimants and the respondents (in
the arbitration) filed separate list of witnesses on
01.08.2022 and 10.08.2022.
21. By an order of 03.08.2022, the Arbitral
Tribunal modified certain issues and framed an additional
issue.
22. Despite the Tribunal fixing certain dates in the
months of October and November 2022 for recording
evidence of the parties, the same had to be deferred
because substantial time was taken in deciding
applications of the petitioners, which came to be
dismissed by an order dated 16.12.2022. Even after
16.12.2022, the evidence of the parties could not be
recorded, because the Resolution Professional appointed
by the National Company Law Tribunal had resigned from
the position of Resolutional Professional. Therefore, an
order dated 18.03.2023 was passed by the Tribunal for
issuance of notice to the Director of the respondent No.2.
23. It is noted in the order that thereafter, for
extension of time of the Arbitral Tribunal, proceedings
under Section 29A of the Act 1996 were required to be
taken. The claimant sent an email dated 18.09.2024 with
a request that the arbitral proceeding may be continued
from the stage of fixing the dates for recording evidence
because the Commercial Court had extended the mandate
of the Tribunal by 12 months. In view of a writ petition
filed before this Court, the arbitration proceedings were
deferred and the dates fixed were cancelled. On dismissal
of the writ petition by an order dated 06.02.2025 passed
by this Court, by an order dated 09.02.2025, the Tribunal
fixed 14.05.2025 to 19.05.2025 for recording evidence of
the parties.
24. On 09.05.2025, the claimant sent an email
enclosing an application for substitution of Sri. Aiyappa
C.B., as witness in place of Sri. Karthikeya Raval whose
evidence affidavit had been filed on 07.09.2022. The
application, for want of any reply, was allowed by the
Tribunal by an order 13.05.2025. Thereafter, statements
of the witnesses of the parties were recorded in the
meetings of the Tribunal on several dates between
15.05.2025 and 04.07.2025. On 04.07.2025, dates were
fixed in the months of September and October for hearing
final arguments.
25. An e-mail dated 10.07.2025 was sent by the
counsel for the petitioners enclosing the aforesaid
application under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the CPC for
bringing on record the financial statements. The
contention on behalf of the petitioners before the Tribunal
was that the witnesses of the claimant CW-1 and CW-2
had made false and incorrect statements regarding the
date of take over of SABMiller by the claimant and sales in
Andhra Pradesh. The financial statements were required
for demonstrating the inconsistencies in the statements
made by the witnesses of the claimant.
26. It was argued on behalf of the claimants that
the financial statements have no bearing on the merits of
the pleaded case of the parties. Moreover the financial
statements of the claimants had been uploaded in the
website of the Ministry of Corporal Affairs in the relevant
financial years and were very much available to the
petitioners before filing of the statements of defence and
commencement of the exercise for recording of evidence.
Moreover, no question was put to CW-1 or CW-2 to
demonstrate that there was any discrepancy or
inconsistency in their affidavits and the financial
statements of the claimant.
27. The application was opposed by the claimant.
It was stated that after the stage of cross-examination
was over, the parties cannot be allowed to file additional
documents. It was further stated that the documents
sought to be filed were well within the knowledge and
possession of the defendants and there can be no
justification for filing the same after several years of filing
the statement of defence. Inconsistencies in the
statements of the CW-1 and CW-2, if any, should have
been brought forth during the stage of cross-examination
and as such, the documents are to be filed only as an
after thought with the intention to cure the gaps in the
cross-examination of the claimant's witnesses.
28. The Arbitral Tribunal noticed the provisions of
Order VIII Rule 1A CPC and the provisions of Sections 18,
19 and 23 of the Act of 1996 and considered the purport
of the same. It was observed that the procedural order
No.1 dated 18.05.2021 did not reflect that the Tribunal
had on the basis of agreement reached between the
parties decided to follow the principles underlined the
provisions of the CPC. It was held that after completion of
the exercise for recording of evidence, there was no legal
justification to entertain the prayer made in the
application. It was held that the financial statements for
that period had been filed by the claimant with the
Registrar of Companies as part of its statutory obligation
and the same was available on the website of the Ministry
of Corporate Affairs and the financial statements were
obtained from the website. However, neither was it stated
in the application nor was it demonstrated that they were
not aware of the financial statements of the claimant for
that period, till the filing of the statement of defence, filing
of affidavit of evidence by the parties and cross-
examination of the witnesses. It was further observed
that the respondents in the arbitration had failed to
disclose as to when they obtained those financial
statements from the website of the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs. The evidence affidavit of the witnesses of the
parties were filed on 07.09.2022 and the witnesses were
cross-examined on various dates in the months of May
and June 2025. It was held that in the absence of any
contrary averment in the application, it was reasonable to
presume that the respondents in the arbitration were very
much in the know of the financial statements of the
claimants at the time of filing the statement of defence,
framing the issues and filing of the evidence affidavits of
their witnesses or at least at the stage of cross-
examination of the CW-1 and CW-2 in the months of May
and June 2025. They had not offered any explanation as
to why the witnesses of the claimant were not confronted
with these documents to demonstrate any discrepancy or
inconsistency or falsehood in their evidence affidavits or
the answers given in reply to the questions put in cross-
examination. It was also held that none of the issues
framed had anything to do with the date of take over of
SABMiller by Anheuser Busch InBev of sales in Andhra
Pradesh and in cross-examination no question was put to
CW.1 and CW.2 on these points. The parties are seeking
adjudication on the legality of termination of the Brewing
Agreement by the claimant, legality of the guarantees
furnished by respondent nos. 2 to 5 (petitioners herein)
in the arbitration and their liability as guarantors to the
transaction between the claimant and the respondent
under the Brewing Agreement.
29. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
30. The judgments that are cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention are
not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the
instant case. The Arbitral Tribunal has exhaustively dealt
with the relevant aspects of the matter and has arrived at
correct findings while dismissing the application of the
petitioners under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC. Given the
mandate of the Supreme Court, in the case of Deep
Industries Limited Vs. ONGC7 and in Bhaven
Construction (supra), we find no jurisdictional error in
the impugned order of the Arbitral Tribunal that would
( 2020) 15 SCC 706
merit interference. Even otherwise, the aforesaid writ
petition is filed before us sitting in a Division Bench
seeking issuance of writs of certiorari and mandamus
which cannot be said to be a petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution.
31. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
PK/KGR
