Karnataka High Court
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike vs M/S Ashoka Biogreen Pvt Ltd on 23 January, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 427 OF 2024
CONNECTED WITH
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 428 OF 2024
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 429 OF 2024
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 430 OF 2024
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 431 OF 2024
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 432 OF 2024
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 433 OF 2024
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 434 OF 2024
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 435 OF 2024
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 436 OF 2024
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 437 OF 2024
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 438 OF 2024
IN COMAP No. 427 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
-2-
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 115 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
-3-
IN COMAP No. 428 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
-4-
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 114 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
IN COMAP No. 429 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
-5-
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036, MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001, KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 113 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
IN COMAP No. 430 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
-6-
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
-7-
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 108 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
IN COMAP No. 431 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
-8-
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 117 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
IN COMAP No. 432 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
-9-
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 111 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
- 10 -
IN COMAP No. 433 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
- 11 -
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 106 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
IN COMAP No. 434 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
- 12 -
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036, MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001, KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 107 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
IN COMAP No. 435 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
- 13 -
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
- 14 -
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 109 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
IN COMAP No. 436 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
- 15 -
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 116 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
IN COMAP No. 437 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
- 16 -
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 110 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
- 17 -
IN COMAP No. 438 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OFFICE AT N. R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SATYANAND B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
No.861, ASHOKA HOUSE,
ASHOKA MARG, WADALA,
NASHIK-422 011,
MAHARASHTRA,
EMAIL: [email protected]
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT
WIN-1, 2ND FLOOR, SURVEY No.93,
SAI HEERA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TVS SHIRLEY SHOWROOM,
GHORPADI ROAD,
MUNDWA, PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA,
[email protected],
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SHRI BALASAHEB ANIL AWHADE,
S/O ANIL AWHADE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/A GHORPADI ROAD MUNDWA,
PUNE-411 036,
MAHARASHTRA.
2. SHRI ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI,
JUDGE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (RETD),
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
- 18 -
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTER,
BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND AMP; INTERNATIONAL);
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMLESH GHUMRE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI A.L. PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13
(1A), PROVISO OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W
SECTION 37 (1) (C ), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED IN COM.
AP 112 OF 2023, DATED 03.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH No. 86), ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS.
THESE COMMERCIAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned advocate Mr. B.S. Satyanand for the appellant
and learned advocate Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre along with learned
advocate Mr. A.L. Parashuram for the respondents.
2. These appeals arise from a common award passed by the
Arbitration Tribunal in A.C. Nos.76 to 87 of 2020, dated 18.05.2023
and common judgment in Com.A.P.Nos.106 of 2023 to 117 of
- 19 -
2023, dated 03.08.2024 by LXXXV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Commercial Court).
3. The dispute between the parties is common, however, arises
from different contracts. The facts, disputes and contentions raised
by both parties are common. Learned advocates for both parties
have addressed common arguments dealing all the appeals.
Hence, all the above appeals are heard and disposed by this
common judgment.
4. Facts in COMAP.No.427 of 2024 are referred to for
convenience and to avoid repetition.
5. Respondent No.1 was the claimant and the appellant was
the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal. The claimant
Company is involved in developing, operating and maintaining a
biomethanization plant for solid waste management. The
appellant invited tenders for 12 projects to set up and operate
biomethanization plants for the generation of energy from
biodegradable waste of 5MTPD in various wards. The
claimant/respondent was successive bidder and was awarded
contract.
- 20 -
6. The dispute arose between the parties about the non-
availability of land, delay in the issue of work orders, handing over
possession of plots and the claimant incurring expenses while
keeping his men and machinery idle, thereby incurring loss and the
interest incurred on the borrowings. Further dispute was also
regarding non-availability of roads to the project sites and the
imposition of fine for delay in the work execution.
7. The claimants invoking the arbitration clause, filed petition
before this Court for appointment of Arbitrator. This Court
appointed the Arbitrator. The claim is towards shortage in waste
material supply, compensation for non-production of slurry, towards
idling of manpower, planted machinery, reimbursement of
expenditure incurred on security, deduction of fine, charges for
obtaining power and water and interest. The heads of claims in all
the claim petitions are substantially similar except for the difference
in project sites and the amounts.
8. The respondent filed a statement of defence contending that
the claims are excessive, repetitive, fanciful and imaginary. It is the
stand of the respondent that the claimant was aware of difficulties
and stumbling blocks in executing the contract, till the handing over
of the site, no work was commenced. In that view, the loss
- 21 -
suffered by idling of manpower, plant and machinery is not
justified.
9. It is further stand of the appellant before the Arbitral Tribunal
that an Expert Committee was appointed to examine the claims of
the claimant. The Committee has recommended to pay Rs.6
crores as against claim of Rs.27.04 crores, whereas the Executive
Engineer was of the view that the claimant was entitled to Rs.3
crores only. This amount has been paid and accepted by the
claimant without any further claim or dispute. The Arbitral Tribunal
after considering the pleadings, oral evidence and the documents
passed an award holding that the claimant is entitled to
compensation towards shortage in supply of waste for idling of
manpower, plant and machinery, towards reimbursement of
expenditure on security, return of fine amount, segregation
charges, water and electricity charges, interest at 18% and other
charges.
10. The respondent preferred petition under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act'). The
Commercial Court by order dated 03.08.2024 dismissed the
petitions by common order.
- 22 -
11. The respondent is in appeal under Section 37 of the Act.
12. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Satyanand for the appellant
submits that the order of the Commercial Court is without
considering the various contentions raised. Hence, the same is not
sustainable. It is submitted that the Commercial Court, while
exercising power under Section 34 of the Act, has to provide
findings on all the grounds, whereas the order impugned is cryptic.
12.1 Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that
the claim by the respondent company was for Rs.27 Crores. The
appellant constituted the Committee to examine the claims. The
Committee determined and directed to pay Rs.6,01,42,502/-. The
appellant, considering all other aspects, has paid the sum of
Rs.3,50,00,000/- towards a full and final settlement of the entire
dues, which the Company accepts without any protest. This aspect
is not considered by the Arbitral Tribunal and the Commercial
Court. In the alternative, it is the submission that the amount of
Rs.3,50,00,000/- paid should have given credit/adjustment to the
award amount.
12.2 Learned advocate for the appellant further submits that all
the heads under which the award is considered, were considered
- 23 -
by the Committee, which is evident from the Committee report.
The payment of the amount as awarded without credit to
Rs.3,50,00,000/- would be double payment for the same claim one
by the Tribunal and the other by the Committee.
12.3 Learned advocate for the appellant further maintains that
there is no breach of contract by the appellant-BBMP. The delay in
commencement/completion of the project is attributable in entirety
to the claimant. If the delay was at the instance of the BBMP, the
claimant either had an option to terminate the contract or withdraw
itself from the contract. Both are not exercised.
12.4 Learned advocate further submits that the Commercial
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act is
required to answer every ground within the parameters of Section
34 of the Act. It is the submission that the Commercial Court
except recording the judgments dealing with the scope of Section
34 of the Act has merely approved the conclusion drawn by the
Arbitral Tribunal, which is contrary to the scope and spirit of Section
34 of the Act.
12.5 Learned advocate for BBMP further submits that the
respondent has admitted receipt of Rs.3.5 crores towards the claim
- 24 -
amount after the filing of CMP. This admission is overlooked by
the Arbitral Tribunal and the Commercial Courts.
12.6 The appellant in furtherance of its contention submits that
the amount of Rs.3.5 crores paid was in respect of the very claim
before the Tribunal along with the memo dated 20.11.2024. The
tabulation with details having Job No., payment details including
the work's name is filed. With these documents, the learned
advocate for BBMP would submit that each payment refers to work
order. The Claim under this work order was considered by the
Committee and the Arbitral Tribunal.
12.7 Learned advocate relies on the judgment of this Court in
Union of India vs. Warsaw Engineers and another, ILR 2022
Kar. 251 and the judgment in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
14936 of 2024 dated 26.07.2024 in Kalanidhimaran vs. Ajay
Singh and another.
13. Learned advocate Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre appearing along
with learned advocate Mr. A.L. Parashuram for respondents
submits that the grounds raised by the appellant are answered by
the Commercial Court.
- 25 -
13.1 Learned advocate for the respondents would submit that
receipt of Rs.3.5 Crores was against a different work unrelated to
the work/claim before the Tribunal. The respondent under the
contract was to carry out various construction activities, towards
which Rs.3.5 Crores is paid and acknowledged.
13.2 Learned advocate would further submit that the appellant
has not raised any ground about the payment of Rs.3.5 Crores
towards the claims considered by the Tribunal. The ground on
payment of Rs.3.5 Crores to satisfy the claim involved in these
matters is raised for the first time before this Court. The said
contention is without any foundational facts and evidence. The
said ground not having been raised before the Commercial Court, it
is not open to the appellant to raise such new grounds in the
appeal.
13.3 Learned advocate submits that the appellant-BBMP has
categorically made a statement before the Tribunal to the effect
that the claims made are not covered by payments made by the
respondent to the claimant.
- 26 -
13.4 Learned advocate for the respondents further submits that
the arbitral award cannot be interfered on re-appraisal of evidence,
even if two views are possible.
13.5 Learned advocate has relied on the following judgments
dealing with the scope of interference by the Court while invoking
Sections 34 or 37 of the Act.
(i) Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development
Authority, [(2015) 3 SCC 49];
(ii) Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
and another vs. Sanman Rice Mills & others,
(2024 SCC OnLine SC 2632);
(iii) Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., vs. State of Goa,
[(2024) 1 SCC 479];
(iv) UHL Power Company Ltd., vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh, [(2022) 4 SCC 116];
(v) Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd., vs. Chenab Bridge
Project Undertaking, [(2023) 9 SCC 85];
14. Heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the
appeal papers.
15. The point that arises for consideration of this Court is as to
whether the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and the
judgment of the Commercial Court warrants interference by this
Court.
- 27 -
16. These appeals are under Section 37 of the Act. Section 34
of the Act stipulates the grounds under which the award of an
Arbitral Tribunal can be interfered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
MMTC Limited Vs. Vedanta Limited [(2019) 4 SCC 163], has
held jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is akin to jurisdiction of
the Court under Section 34 of the Act. While entertaining appeal
under Section 37 of the Act, the interference is restricted and
subject to the grounds enumerated in Section 34 of the Act. It is
further held that the scope of jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37
of the Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction and Courts
ought not to interfere with the Arbitral Award in a casual and
cavalier manner. Further, the mere possibility of an alternative
view on facts or interpretation of a contract does not entitle Courts
to reverse the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal. These principles are
reaffirmed in various judgments cited by the respondents,
emphasizing the limited and circumscribed role of courts in matters
concerning arbitral awards.
17. However, as held in the judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the respondents, interference with an Arbitral Award is
permissible only when a case is made out under the specific
grounds enumerated in Section 34 of the Act. Upon careful
- 28 -
consideration of the legal principles, the appellant has not
established sufficient grounds for interference with the Arbitral
Award or the judgment of the Commercial Court. However, there
exists a specific and unequivocal ground that necessitates
consideration. Failure to examine and address this ground would
render the Arbitral Award arbitrary and capricious, thereby justifying
limited judicial intervention to uphold the principles of fairness and
justice.
18. It is evident from the record that the claim made by the
respondents was for a sum of Rs. 27 Crore. In response, the
appellant constituted a Committee to examine the claims and the
Committee determined that an amount of Rs. 6,01,42,502/- was
payable to the respondents. The appellant's case is that, pursuant
to the recommendation of the Committee, a payment of Rs.
3,50,00,000/- was made, which has been duly acknowledged by
the respondent. The very same dispute, which was the subject
matter of the Committee's determination, also formed the basis of
the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal. The appellant
contends that the payment of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-, which was made in
respect of the same contract, should have been duly considered by
the Arbitral Tribunal. It is further asserted that the Arbitral Tribunal,
- 29 -
in arriving at its award, ought to have granted appropriate credit or
adjustment for the amount already paid.
19. The aforesaid contentions are evident from the Arbitral
Award, wherein the counsel for the claimant has explicitly
acknowledged the credit of the sum to the claimant's account.
However, the Arbitral Tribunal, in addressing this issue, has noted
that no document was produced to establish that the claimant had
received the sum of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- as a full and final settlement.
This finding is, however, inconsistent with the undisputed facts. The
appellant has unequivocally stated that the amount of Rs.
3,50,00,000/- was paid, which was duly accepted by the claimant.
When the receipt of such payment is acknowledged and accepted
by the claimant, the requirement to produce further documentation
to prove the payment is irrelevant. This critical aspect, however,
has been overlooked by the Commercial Court.
20. Now, It is required to consider whether the error committed
by the Arbitral Tribunal and subsequently upheld by the
Commercial Court, warrants interference, in light of the limited
scope of judicial intervention under Section 37 of the Act.
21. Section 34 (2) (b) reads as under,
- 30 -
"(b) the Court finds that -
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of
settlement by arbitration under the law for the time
being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is conflict with the public policy of
India.
[Explanation: 1- For the avoidance of any doubt, it is
clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of
India, only if, -
(i) the making of the award was induced or affected by
fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75
or section 81; or
(ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of
Indian law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of
morality or justice.
Explanation: 2- For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to
whether there is a contravention with the fundamental
policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits
of the dispute."
22. If the facts of the present case are evaluated in light of
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the issue at hand
pertains to a double payment for the same claim. It is well-
established in law that double payment for the settlement of a
single claim is impermissible. In the event that part of the claim is
settled before the Arbitral Tribunal's award, such payment must be
duly adjusted in the final award. The appellant has furnished bank
statements and vouchers which clearly substantiate the payments
made towards the same job work. The respondent, on the other
- 31 -
hand, contends that the payment of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- was made
for a different work unrelated to the claim, however, no supporting
evidence has been presented. It is undisputed that the payment of
Rs. 3,50,00,000/- is linked to the same job work that forms the
basis of the claim.
23. The issue of double payment for the same claim would
undoubtedly be in direct conflict with the Public Policy of India and
would violate the Fundamental Policy of Indian Law, as well as the
basic principles of morality and justice. The Arbitral Tribunal has
addressed the Committee's report, which determined the liability to
be Rs. 6,01,42,502/-, and examined the correctness of the same.
However, when the payment of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- is asserted to
have been made in accordance with the Committee's
recommendation, the Arbitral Tribunal ought to have carefully
examined and recorded a finding on the purpose of the payment of
Rs. 3,50,00,000/-.
24. The error committed by the Arbitral Tribunal and
subsequently upheld by the Commercial Court, if not rectified,
would amount to an arbitrary decision. The statement made by the
learned advocate for the appellant before the Arbitral Tribunal,
asserting that no amounts were received by the claimant in relation
- 32 -
to the claims, cannot be considered a conclusive fact, particularly
when the record clearly reflects that such a submission is prima
facie incorrect or contrary to the facts.
25. This Court is inclined to interfere with the Arbitral Award and
the judgment of the Commercial Court to this limited extent. The
Commercial Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, committed an error by failing to
record any finding regarding the payment of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-. One
fact that remains undisputed is the payment and receipt of Rs.
3,50,00,000/-. The error in the Arbitral Tribunal's award lies in its
failure to examine the purpose of the payment of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-.
A bare perusal of the statement of payments placed before the
Court would clearly indicate that the payment of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-
was made in relation to the same job work for which the claim
petition has been filed.
26. The issues raised above cannot be examined by this Court
in proceedings under Section 37 of the Act. However, considering
the material evidence on record, although the error can be
identified in the Arbitral Tribunal's award, given the restricted scope
of judicial intervention, it is appropriate and just necessary to direct
- 33 -
the Commercial Court to examine and record finding on this
aspect.
27. Considering the limited extent of interference made by this,
the judgments cited at bar are not specifically discussed, as it is
unnecessary at this stage.
28. In the light of the above aspects and the aforesaid findings,
the following,
ORDER
(i) The appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and order in Com.A.P. Nos.106 to 117 of 2023 dated 03.08.2024 passed by the by LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Commercial Court) is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.
(ii) The Commercial Court shall examine the aspect of payment of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- and, if it is found to be part of the claim amount before the Arbitral Tribunal, appropriate set-off or adjustment shall be made to that extent.
- 34 -
(iii) The findings recorded by this Court however shall not influence the Court below while undertaking the exercise as directed above.
(v) The other findings as recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal and in Application under Section 34 of the Act are not interfered with and they are maintained. In view of disposal of main appeals, pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of as not surviving.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 122