Karnataka High Court
M/S Sattva Developers Private Lmited vs M/S Maverick Property Investments on 10 April, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14788
WP No. 10697 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 10697 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S SATTVA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
4TH FLOOR, SALARPURIA WINDSOR
NO.3, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGLAURU 560042
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI ASHWIN SANCHETI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G. L. VISWANATH, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
VANDANA S 1. M/S MAVERICK PROPERTY INVESTMENTS
Location: High Court
of Karnataka PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.540
III FLOOR, CMH ROAD
INDIRANAGAR, BEGNALURU 560038
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. M/S TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14788
WP No. 10697 of 2024
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
TCS HOUSE, 21 D S MARG
FORT MUMBAI 400001
ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT
SHESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA 560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. M/S PARTH INFRPOMOTER LLP
A BODY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF LIMITED
LIABILTITY ACT, 2005
HAVING OFFICE AT FLAT NO.7
1ST FLOOR, PLOT NO 231
SRI NILAYAM BUILDING
OPPOSITE GTV, STATION (KOLIWADA)
SION (EAST), MUMBAI 400022
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
4. HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL (RTD)
FORMER JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
'OM' 1 SWAGAT PARK
BEHIND JALSA PARTY PLOT
THALTEJ, OFF S G ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380059
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI M.V.SUNDARARAMAN, ADV. FOR CAV/R-1;
SRI S.V.GIRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R-2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 05/04/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN AP NO. 49/2022, AT
ANNEXURE-A, 2) DIRECT THE HONBLE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:14788
WP No. 10697 of 2024
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU TO PROVIDE THE PETITIONER AN
OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AT TIME OF HEARING IA NO. IV FILED
BY THE PETITIONER IN AP NO. 49/2022, AT ANNEXURE-S AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In this petition, the petitioner, who is respondent No.2 in AP No.49/2022 is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-2) insofar as it relates to directing orders to be passed on I.A.IV filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC along with main petition.
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was posted before the trial Court on 05.04.2024, on which date, the petitioner filed an application I.A.IV under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the said petition filed by respondent No.1 herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground that the case involves a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It was contended that since the case involved -4- NC: 2024:KHC:14788 WP No. 10697 of 2024 was a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the said Act, 2015, the said petition in AP No.49/2022 was not maintainable before the trial Court and the same was liable to be either rejected or transferred to the designated Commercial Court.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the event I.A.IV was to be allowed by the trial Court, the trial Court may be directed to transfer AP No.78/2022 also to the designated Commercial Court.
5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1, who was petitioner in the said AP No.49/2022 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 herein, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 in AP No.49/2022 opposed the said submission and pointed out that even according to the petitioner herein himself, the dispute was not a commercial dispute in the light of AP No.78/2022 filed by the petitioner himself. In this context, my attention was invited to the specific and categorical submission/statement made in the said AP No.78/2022 filed by the petitioner, in particular paragraph No.63 wherein the petitioner has stated that the dispute arising out of the arbitral award was not a commercial dispute and since both AP No.78/2022 filed by the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:14788 WP No. 10697 of 2024 petitioner herein and AP No.49/2022 filed by respondent No.1 herein arise out of the very same arbitral award, the petitioner was estopped from contending that the dispute was not a commercial dispute and this contention was liable to be rejected by the doctrine of erection and acquiescence.
6. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submitted that so long as the trial Court directed passing of orders on I.A.IV without expressing any opinion on its merits/demerits, the trial Court was fully justified in directing orders to be passed on I.A.IV along with main petition and that there is no merit in the present petition which is liable to be dismissed.
7. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner having filed I.A.IV on 05.04.2024, though arguments on merits had already been completed prior to that day itself by both sides, since the fresh/new application I.A.IV had been filed by the petitioner on that day, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to first decide I.A.IV and thereafter proceed to pass orders on main petition and failure to do so would vitiate the impugned order -6- NC: 2024:KHC:14788 WP No. 10697 of 2024 insofar as it relates to directing orders to be passed on I.A.IV along with main petition.
8. On this short ground of patent procedural irregularity/illegality, committed by the trial court, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 and direct the trial Court to prepone the matter and hear all the parties on I.A.IV and pass appropriate orders on the said application in the first instance and thereafter proceed further to dispose of the main petition in accordance with law.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 05.04.2024 passed in AP No.49/2022 insofar as it relates to the trial Court directing orders to be passed on I.A.IV along with main petition on 19.04.2024, is hereby set aside.
iii) The trial Court is directed to prepone/advance AP No.49/2022 c/w AP No.78/2022 from 19.04.2024 to 16.04.2024.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:14788 WP No. 10697 of 2024
iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to seek preponment/advancement of the matters from 19.04.2024 to 16.04.2024.
v) The trial Court is directed to hear the parties on I.A.IV filed in AP No.49/2022 and pass appropriate orders on the said application in the first instance and thereafter proceed to dispose of the main petition in accordance with law. It is made clear that other than I.A.No.IV, petitioner shall not be entitled to file any other interlocutory application.
Sd/-
JUDGE HA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 76