Bangalore District Court
M/S Anuni Infrastructures vs M/S Volvo Financial Services India ... on 22 January, 2024
30
Com.A.P.No.120/2022
KABC170031112022
IN THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH.83)
THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JANUARY 2024
PRESENT:
SUMANGALA S BASAVANNOUR., B.COM, LL.M.,
LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.A.P.No.120/2022
BETWEEN:
1. M/s Anuni
Infrastructures, A
Partnership Firm #78,
Karad Wakhan Road,
Mangalwar Peth,
Opp. Karad Urban
Bank Branch Rukmini
Nagar, Maharashtra-
415110.
2. Mr.Sachin Tukaram
Patil, Father name
not known, Age:
Major, #78, Karad
Wakhan Road,
Mangalwar Peth,
Opp. Karad Urban
Bank Branch Rukmini
Nagar, Maharashtra-
415110.
30
Com.A.P.No.120/2022
: PETITIONERS
(By H.B.R., Advocate)
AND
1. M/s.Volvo Financial
Services (India)
Private Limited,
formerly known as
M/s. Volvo Asset
Finance India Private
Limited, having its
carporate of office at
No.65/2, Bangalore
Tech Park, Block-A, 5th
Floor, Parin Building,
C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 093.
Rep. by its Legal
Collection Manager
Ms.Nimi Nair.
2. Mr. Kishan Dutt
Kalaskar, Retd. Judge,
R/at No.74, Distey
House, First Floor, 8th
Cross, Opp. Upadhya
Skin & ENT Clinic,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560003.
: RESPONDENTS
(Represented by R1-
J.M.P, R2-Arbitrator.,
Advocate)
30
Com.A.P.No.120/2022
Date of Institution of the suit 09.11.2022
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for declaration & Petition for setting aside
Possession, Suit for injunction Arbitral Award
etc.)
Date on which judgment was 22.01.2024
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 02 13
(SUMANGALA S BASAVANNOUR),
LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a Petition filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Petitioner prays that to set aside the award dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 in claim petition No. 12035/2022.
2. The Brief facts of the Plaint are as follows:-
The respondent No.1 is the registered finance company The petitioners borrowed a loan sum of Rs.1,38,74,000/- by executing the Master Lease Agreement (MLA) dated 31.12.2018. The petitioners have taken the loan and utilized 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 the said funds for purchase of the vehicles Item No.1 to 7 which shown in the impugned award dated 28.07.2022 received on 16.08.2022. The learned Arbitrator i.e., 2 nd respondent passed the award without hearing and not provided the sufficient opportunity the said 2 nd petitioner thereby the 2nd respondent directed the said 1st respondent company to recovery of Rs.1,24,07,602/- with further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing till the date of realization from the petitioners with respect to the above said loan availed by them and also directed the claimant/respondent company is at liberty to re-possess, if it not re-possessed vide interim order already granted and sell the above mentioned re-possessed schedule assets hypothecated and adjust the sale proceeds towards the loan out-standing and other charges. The petitioner is a farmer and not having a qualification, at the time of loan process the 1st respondent have taken signature from the petitioner on the blank papers. The 1 st respondent company right from the beginning the petitioner have re-paid the loan sincerely without any default in 13 EMI of Rs.5,89,457/- each month in all total sum of Rs.76,62,941/- has been deposited/repaid to the 1st respondent company (13 months x 5,89,457/- = 76,62,941/-). The transaction made prior to COVID-19 pandemic period. Thereafter the COVID-19 spreaded all over 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 the world then the Central Government of India has locked down throughout the country. The Maharastra Government has locked down on 19.03.2020, even after lockdown and moratorium period the above said petitioner have paid the three EMI sum of Rs.5,89,457/- each month, in all total sum of Rs.17,68,371/- has been deposited/repaid to the 1 st respondent company (3 months x 5,89,457/-
=Rs.17,68,371/-). The petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.76,62,941/- + 17,68,371/- = 94,31,312/-. The respondent claimant company have already deducted the margin money sum of Rs.70,63,747/- from the petitioners while disbursing the loan amount sum of Rs.1,38,74,000/-. Therefore, the award/judgment passed by the sole arbitrator is not correct and in accordance with law.
3. The petitioner has challenged the award on following;
GROUNDS As per the MLA dated 31.12.2018, clause 21.2 is in their favour only and one-sided. Therefore it is illegal and not sustainable under the eye of law. If the absolute powers vested to the respondent No.1 to appoint the sole arbitrator there are every chances to pass award in their favour only. Therefore, the independent arbitrator is required for 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 adjudicate the present claim petition.
While signing on the said MLA dated 31.12.2018, the respondent No.1 claimant company should have explain the contents of the entire said agreement, the same was not done by the 1st Respondent.
The MLA dated 31.12.2018 is contained page No. 1 to 36 it is a loan format, that to in small minute letters and they would not give sufficient time to read the contents of the loan format the MLA. Therefore the petitioners without reading the contents and clauses specified in the said loan format blindly signed on the loan format papers.
Due to Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown he could not get any work order from the M/s Sahapoorji Pallonji Co. Pvt. Ltd., who is a main contractor and taken the various projects from the delhi, mumbai, industrial coriader zone. Due stopping the work order from the said main contractor, could not make payment in favour of Respondent No.1 claim company.
He is sub-contractor to the said M/s Sahapoorji Pallonji co. Pvt. Ltd., believing their works and based on their work order issued by the said company. They have purchased the 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 said vehicles item No. 1 to 7 and since they have not get any payment from the said company, even thought they have completed their work. Therefore, they have been completely upset and financial constraints due to covid-19 pandemic situation across the world as well as India.
The notice sent by the Respondent No.1 claimant company for recovery of money and appointment of sole arbitrator was not received by them. Therefore, on this ground alone be pleased to set-aside the award passed by the 2nd Respondent and remitted back to the same the arbitration for fresh consideration.
Sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the sole arbitrator, hence it is violating the principles of natural justice. Hence, the award passed by the sole arbitrator is liable to be set-aside, otherwise the hardship and injustice will be caused to the petitioner.
The arbitration allowed with cost and further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing till the date of realization on the claim amount from the petitioner, the interest claimed by the 1 st Respondent claimant company is exorbitant and the claiming of interest is violation of RBI 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 valuation Act. Hence this petition.
4. The Respondent No.1 has filed objection stating that the present petition filed by the appellants is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as they have only tried to set up a false, frivolous and vague story which is incorrect and false on the face of it and also on the basis of the documents on the record of the arbitral proceedings. The present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed an award can be set aside only within the four corners of the provision Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appellants had agreed to the procedure regarding the appointment of arbitrator and the appointment of the sole arbitrator is as per the loan agreement. In the present case clause 3 of the arbitration agreement provides for a sole arbitration to be appointed by the investor. There is (a) no named/designated arbitrator and (b) the investor/any of its directors has not claimed a right to act as the arbitrator itself. The investor has appointed a retired judge of a high court. The analogy sought to be drawn between the facts of the present case and those in TRF, Bharat Broadband and Perkins is factually distinguishable since in TRF the MD himself was a sole arbitrator and was disqualified to act as such by reason of the amending Act of 2016 and object of issuing notice u/s 21 of the act is that the 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 party against whom the claim is made should be aware of the same so that he can point out if some of the claims are time barred or barred by law or untenable and also setup counter claims if any as observed in the above judgment and apart, unless there is notice invoking arbitration clause it will not be possible to know whether the procedure envisaged under the arbitration agreement is followed or not, where the parties have agreed on the procedure for appointment of arbitrator. In para 27 of the judgment in Alupro Building system Private Limited case, it is made clear that assuming that the arbitration clause permits one of the parties to choose the arbitrator, it is necessary for the party making such appointment to let the other party know in advance the name of the person may be disqualified to act as an arbitrator for various reasons. The recipient of the notice may be able to point out the claim and the claimant may be persuaded to appoint a qualified person and thus, Section 21 deals with the requirements of natural justice. In the instant case, the sole arbitrator does not fall under any of the prohibited relationships or categories in the seventh schedule. Nor is he an employee of the claimant or amenable to the controlling influence of the case of the respondents that the sole arbitrator works for the claimant and therefore the ratio in sawarmal Gadodia's case is not 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 applicable. When the parties had agreed upon the procedure for appointment of the arbitrator who is not a person having interest in the outcome of the adjudication and merely because the lender has the authority to appoint sole arbitrator under the facility agreement, the proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated. The appellants had due and proper knowledge of the arbitral proceedings, but they never turned up to participate in the proceedings and deliberately and intentionally chose to avoid the same. The arbitral award reveals that arbitral tribunal give an opportunity to the applicants to appear and contest the claim filed by answering respondent, however, despite being duly served with the notices sent by the arbitral, applicants deliberately avoided to appear before the arbitral tribunal with malafide intentions to avoid payment of outstanding loan amount. Hence the present application under section 34 of the act is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Hence, the Respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Based on the above contentions of both parties, following Points arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether there are grounds to set aside the Impugned Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act?
2. What Order?30
Com.A.P.No.120/2022
6. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1:- In the Negative.
Point No.2:- As per the final Order for the following reasons.
REASONS
7. Point No.1:- The settled position in law that in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, the Court does not sit in appeal over the Award. Thus, an Arbitral Award passed by an Arbitrator shall not be interfered with lightly. The Court can neither sit in appeal nor reassess or re-appreciate the evidence and the Arbitral Award can only be interfered with grounds stipulated in Section 34(2) of the Act.
8. It is settled position in law that an Award could be set aside if it is contrary to:-
(a) fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(b) the interest of India ; or
(c) justice or morality ; or
(d) in addition, if it is patently illegal.
9. The illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegality is of trivial nature, it cannot be held that the award is against the public policy. Award could also be set aside, if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 conscience of the Court. Such an award is opposed to public policy and is required to be adjudged void.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment reported in 2015(3) - S.C.C. - 49 (Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority), (which is relied on by the Advocate for the Defendant) while setting aside the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi culled out the legal principles after traversing the judicial pronouncements passed by the various High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the said case, it is held that it is important to note that the 1996 Act was enacted to replace the Arbitration Act, 1940 in order to provide for an Arbitral procedure which is fair, efficient and capable of meeting the needs of Arbitration and also to provide that the tribunal gives reasons for an Arbitral Award; to ensure that the Arbitral Tribunal remains within the limits of its jurisdiction and to minimize the supervisory role of Courts in the Arbitral process.
11. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it must be clearly understood that when a Court is applying the "Public Policy" test to an Arbitration Award, it does not act, as a Court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected. A possible view by the Arbitrator 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 on facts has necessarily to pass muster, as the Arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his Arbitral Award. Thus, an Arbitral Award based on little evidence or no evidence which does not measure up in quality to a train legal mind would not be held to be invalid on this count.
12. In the present case the petitioners/borrowed a loan sum of Rs. 1,38,74,000/- from the 1st Respondent by executing the Master Lease Agreement date 31.12.2018 for purchase of vehicles item No. 1 to 7. The respondent availing the loan committed default in payment of installments in-spite of several demands and reminders. The learned arbitrator Mr. Kiishan Dutt Kalaskar, retired senior civil judge has appointed a arbitrator. The claim petition is filed to adjudicate the dispute and for recovery of Rs. 1,24,07,602/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.
13. The arbitrator has passed an award as under:
"The claim of the claimant company in respect of recovery of sum of Rs. 1,24,07602/- from the respondent/s is/or hereby allowed with cost further interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing till the date of realization of the claim amount from the Respondent."30
Com.A.P.No.120/2022
14. Petitioner challenged the award on the ground that as per the MLA dated 31.12.2018, clause 21.2 is in their favour only and one-sided. Therefore it is illegal and not sustainable under the eye of law. If the absolute powers vested to the respondent No.1 to appoint the sole arbitrator there are every chances to pass award in their favour only. Therefore, the independent arbitrator is required for adjudicate the present claim petition. Therefor the independent arbitrator is required for adjudicate the present claim petition.
15. Perused the Master Lease Agreement clause 21 reads as under.
21. : Dispute resolution.
21.1 : In the event of any dispute arising in connection with the subject matter of this MLA or any supplement executed, pursuant hereto/any lease agreement, including any question regarding its existence, interpretation, validity or termination hereof and thereof, either party may refer such a dispute or differences arising out of or in connection with clause 21.2 below.
21.2 : Any and all disputes or differences arising out of or in connection with this MLA or any supplement executed pursuant hereto/ any lease agreement, or its performance including any dispute regarding the existence, validity or termination hereof and thereof, shall be exclusively and 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 finally settled under the provisions of the arbitration and conciliation act by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the lessor.
21.3 : The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English.
21.4 : The venue, or legal place, of the arbitration shall be Bengaluru or at any suitable place in India as the lessor may determine from time to time.
16. In the present case the petitioner made allegation that unilaterally appointed the arbitrator by the Respondent without his consent and clause 21.2 is in their favour only and one-sided. Therefore it is illegal and not sustainable under the eye of law.
17. Annexure R5 discloses that the respondent given a notice to the respondent for appointment of arbitrator notice dated 28.02.2022 and in this notice they have clearly stated that in order to safeguard its rights and also to recover its legitimate dues appointed Mr. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar, retired judge and advocate as a sole arbitrator after obtaining consent and necessary declaration as per the terms of the facility in order to adjudicate the dispute and the notice is served through RPAD.
30Com.A.P.No.120/2022
18. Further annexure R6 discloses that the learned arbitrator issued notice of enquiry to the present petitioner and called upon the petitioner to payment on 10.06.2022.
Section 12 (5) of arbitration and Conciliation Act is reads as under :-
Notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the seventh schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.
Seventh Schedule of Arbitration is reads as under:-
19. The Respondent No.1 has relied upon a decision reported in 2023 - SCC - CAL 330 (McLeod Russal India Limited and others vs. Aditya Birla Finance Limited and others) the Hon'ble High court of Calcutta held that "The ratio of TRF, Bharat Broadband and Perkins is therefore essentially that of an arbitrator who becomes ineligible by a statutory bar and consequently renders himself ineligible to nominate someone else to act as the arbitrator. The logic is that a disqualified person cannot delegate his position to another as that would amount to arbitration by the disqualified arbitrator himself. Hence, once the MD loses his position/identity as a sole arbitrator, the MD's right to nominate is automatically wiped out - TRF and Perkins".
30Com.A.P.No.120/2022
20. In the above Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme court has discussed that Perkins Eastman Architects, TFR vs. Energo, Bharath Broadband vs United Telecoms, Jaipur Zila Dugdh vs Ajay Sales and supplies, Ellora Paper Mills vs State of Madhya Pradesh of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and similar Judgments of the various High Courts it is observed that these decisions disclose a common factual thread: namely of the arbitrator being a designated person of one of the parties, usually the MD/CMD, with the power of appoint another person to act as the arbitrator in his/her place. All the decisions therefore proceeded on the basis that if the designated person becomes ineligible U/s 12 (5) read with the Seventh Schedule, the ineligibility would extend to the person being appointed by the designated arbitrator. Once perkins amplified the ineligibility to all unilateral appointments, the decisions post-perkins proceeded to invalidate all unilateral appointments as an omnibus disqualification without fixing the ineligibility to one or more of the specific entries in the seventh schedule.
21. In the present case, the sole arbitrator does not fall under any of the prohibited relationships of categories in the seventh schedule. Nor designated authority of the Respondent No.1 to controlling influence of the Respondent 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 No.1. Admittedly, the sole arbitrator is a retired civil judge it is clearly mentioned in the order sheet that "As they have no relationship with any of the parties nor have any interest in the subject matter in dispute whether financial, business, professional or other kind, safe and except the fact within the past three years they have been appointed as arbitrator on two or more occasions by one of the parties. The arbitrator has no relationship with the parties or the counsel or the dispute between the parties, directly or indirectly."
22. Further, merely because the lender has the authority to appoint sole arbitrator under the facility agreement, the proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated. When the parties had agreed upon the procedure for appointment of arbitrator. Therefor the ratio in Perkins Eastman's and Sawarmal Gadodia's case are not applicable to the facts of this case.
23. The Petitioner has also challenged the award on the another ground that the MLA agreement dated 31.12.2018 is contained Page No. 1 to 36 it is a loan format, that to in small minute letters and they would not give sufficient time to read the contents of the loan format. The petitioners 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 without reading the contents and clauses specified in the said loan format blindly signed on the loan format papers.
24. Section 34(2)(a)(1) and (2) of the act discloses that :
Where the award is made by an arbitrator nominated by the Commission it shall be filed before the Commission and the Commission may make an order to, -- (a) confirm and enforce the award ; (b) set aside or modify the award ; or (c) remit the award for reconsideration by the arbitrator.
25. On perusal of the Ex.P.5 it is clearly shows that the Petitioner No.2 is a guarantor of the loan. From Ex.P.5 is loan hypothecation agreement is a English language and the petitioner has taken a contention that the Respondent is not given a time to read this agreement. But this objection has not raised before the arbitration. Since, the Petitioner No. 1 and 2 the borrower and guarantor both are signed Ex.P.5. Further, this ground is not comes under the Section 34 (2)(1)
(a) to set aside the award.
26. Further, the Petitioner has challenged the award on the another ground that due to covid-19 pandemic and lockdown petitioner could not get any work order from the M/s Sahapoorji Pallonji Co. Pvt. Ltd., who is a main contractor and taken the various projects from the delhi, mumbai, 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 industrial coriader zone. Due to stopping the work order from the said main contractor, could not make payment in favour of 1st Respondent claimant company and He is sub- contractor to the said M/s Sahapoorji Pallonji co. Pvt. Ltd., believing their works and based on their work order issued by the said company. They have purchased the said vehicles item No. 1 to 7 and since they have not get any payment from the said company, even thought they have completed their work. Therefore, they have been completely upset and financial constraints due to covid-19 pandemic situation across the world as well as India.
27. There is no dispute that the petitioner borrowed a loan sum of Rs. 1,38,74,000/- from the Respondent No.1 by executing a Master Lease agreement dated 31.12.2018, Loan hypothecation agreement and guarantee agreement along with other supported documents at Ex.P.5. The said loans has been sanctioned to the petitioner, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the said lease agreement. The Petitioner were defaulted in repayment of the loan during Covid-19 pandemic. Further, the Petitioner do not dispute executing Ex.P.5 at the time of availing loan, the installments payable, the rate of interest also. The above said ground is not comes under the purview of section 34 to set aside the award.
30Com.A.P.No.120/2022
28. The petitioner has challenged the another ground that the notice sent the Respondent No.1 claimant company for recovery of money and appointment of sole arbitrator was not received by him, therefore he could not appear before the sole arbitrator on hearing dates. Therefore, on this ground alone be pleased to set-aside the award passed by the 2nd Respondent and remitted back to the same arbitrator for fresh consideration. And sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the sole arbitrator, hence, it is violating the principles of natural justice.
29. The proceedings of arbitral tribunal shows that the claimant presented the claim along with I.A on 31.10.2022. On 18.05.2022 notice issued to the Respondent on main petition on I.A. No.I. it also discloses the notice sent to the last known address of the Respondent which was provided themselves. The learned arbitrator has held that after pursuing the precedent is in the opinion that notice of inquiry already sent to the address furnished by the claimant if the notices are unserved or served, the service has to be held sufficient in lieu of the above precedent. The above findings of the arbitrator is not illegal and perverse.
30Com.A.P.No.120/2022
30. The Delhi High court in Rahul Jian vs. Atual Jain recently held that initiating an arbitration process requires issuing a notice of arbitration initiating. Justice Prateek Jalan, who delivered the judgment, emphasised that the party the arbitration has an obligation to serve the other party with a written notice expressing its intention to refer the dispute to arbitration, as mandated by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Act). This notice helps the receiving party gain the advantage of understanding the claims made and is able to narrow down the dispute by deciding whether to accept or reject the claims. Additionally, the notice under Section 21 of the Act serves an important purpose in arbitration proceedings. This notice clarifies claims, identifies potential defenses, outlines the arbitration procedure, facilitates consensus on arbitrator appointment, and triggers court jurisdiction in case of non-compliance. Due to irreconcilable judgments, it has been a matter of judicial conundrum whether its performance is absolutely critical or whether substituted performance can override it.
31. The object of issuing notice U/s 21 of the Act is that the party against whom the claim is made should be aware of the same so that he can point out if some of the claims are time barred or barred by law or untenable and also set up 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 counter claims if any as observed in the judgment. That apart, unless there is notice invoking arbitration clause it will not be possible to know whether the procedure envisaged under the arbitration agreement is followed or not, where the parties have agreed on the procedure for appointment of arbitrator.
32. The respondent No.1 issued a notice invoking the arbitration clause for appointment of arbitrator/Respondent No.2 here has a sole arbitrator at Ex.P.8 dated 28.02.2022. Ex.P.8 (a) and (b) shows that it was sent to the petitioners address by RPAD. It is not the case of the petitioner that they are not in the said address are that they had informed the claimant about the change if any in their address.
33. By virtue of Section 3 of the Act any written communication is deemed to have been received by the party if it is delivered to his address personally or his place of business, habitual residence or mailing address. It is not the respondents case that they were not available in the address mentioned in Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.8(a). Therefore, the argument that only after reasonable enquiry as provided U/s 3(1)(b) of the Act is made, presumption U/s 3(1)(a) can be drawn holds no water. Under these circumstances, I am unable to accept the argument that the respondents did not 30 Com.A.P.No.120/2022 have proper notice of appointment of the arbitrator or invocation or arbitration clause U/s 21 of the Act.
34. It is well established that under no circumstance can any court interfere with an arbitral award on the ground that justice has not been done, for that would be entering into the merits of the dispute, which is not permissible under Sec.34 of the Act. Having regard to the same and in view of the forgoing discussion, the the point for consideration is answered in the negative holding that the claimant has failed to make out grounds U/s 34 of the Act for setting aside the impugned award as prayed. Therefore, I answer this Point in the "Negative".
35. Point No. 2:- For the discussion made on above point, following order is passed:
ORDER The Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is Dismissed.30
Com.A.P.No.120/2022 The Office is directed to send copy of this judgment to both parties to their email ID as required under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended under Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act.
( Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him directly on computer, verified and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22nd day of January, 2024).
(SUMANGALA S. BASAVANNOR), LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.