Bangalore District Court
Krishna Murthy R vs Manohar M Since Deceased Substitted By ... on 28 November, 2024
1
Com.AS.No.43/2016
KABC170086082020
IN THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH.83)
THIS THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024
PRESENT:
SUMANGALA S. BASAVANNOUR., B.COM, LL.M.,
LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.A.S.No.43/2016
BETWEEN:
Krishna Murthy, S/o
Ramaswamy Gounder,
Aged about 45 years,
No.69,
Karumarampalayam,
Uthkuli Main Road,
Tirupur - 641 604, Tamil
Nadu.
: PETITIONER
(Petitioner is
represented by S.S.)
2
Com.AS.No.43/2016
AND
1. M.Manohar, S/o late
D.R. Madhava
Krishnaiah, since
deceased substituted by
his Lrs.
1(a) M. Srinivasa prasad
S/o Late M. Manohar
1 (b) M. Chaithanya
Pasad, S/o Late M.
Manohar
Both are R/at
"Adityodaya" No. 63, 5th
Cross, MCHS Colony, 16th
Main, 2nd Stage, BTM
Layout, Bangalore - 560
076.
2. Smt. Chanda Prabha
Manohar, W/o Late M.
Manohar, aged about 60
years, R/t No. 71, 5th
Main Road, Chamrajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018.
3. Justice B. Padmaraj,
Former Judger, High
Court of Karnataka,
Arbitration Centre,
3
Com.AS.No.43/2016
Khanija Bhavan, Race
Course Road, Bangalore
560 001. - 560 085.
(respondent is
represented by Sri.
Shreya Rajat Srivastava)
: RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution of the 10.03.2016
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for Petition for setting aside Arbitral
declaration & Possession, Award
Suit for injunction etc.)
Date on which judgment 28.11.2024
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
08 08 18
(SUMANGALA S. BASAVANNOR),
LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
4
Com.AS.No.43/2016
JUDGMENT
This Petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the arbitration award dated 11.12.2015 passed in A.C.No.88/2014 and prays to allow the petition.
2. The Brief facts leading to the case are as follows:-
The Plaintiff herein was a claimant in the Arbitration proceedings filed before the arbitration centre, Bangalore in AC NO. 88/2014. The Respondent No.1 and 2 were arraigned as respondent in the arbitration case. The 3 rd Respondent is the arbitrator who conducted the arbitration proceedings. The claimant has filed this arbitration petition for directing the respondent to sell/transfer those shares belonging to or claimed to belong to the respondent in M/s T.R. Mills Private Limited and M/s Chandra Mills as described in the schedule in accordance with the share purchase agreement dated 22.12.2004.
The claimant/ petitioner challenged the arbitral award on the following:5
Com.AS.No.43/2016 GROUNDS
1. Arbitral tribunal error in holding that time was essence of the contract.
2. The arbitral tribunal to have noticed the paragraphs in the agreement containing. Pertaining to the condition precedent commands with the governing to the effect that Compliance of conditions president was a prerequisite to the compliance of obligations by the appellant.
3. The arbitral tribunal error in d linking the payment from compliance of the condition precedent.
4. The arbitral tribunal is also error in the holding that there is a material breach. The arbitral tribunal error in the holding that the payment of 2,00,00,000 was in the form of an advance.
5. Then arbitral tribunal to have held that it was a part of the consideration.
6. The arbitral tribunal erred in holding that there was absence of funds to complete the transaction on the part of the appellant.
7. The arbitral tribunal had to have noticed that all the documents produced by the appellant 6 Com.AS.No.43/2016 demonstrated his financial capacity to the tune of ₹88,00,00,000 crores.
8. The arbitral tribunal error in stating that the documents demonstrating funds was not proof in accordance with law.
9. The arbitral tribunal contradicts itself earlier in the award the tribunal holds that requirements of Indian Evidence Act didn't come. Apply to the arbitral proceedings and was not required to be adhered to strictly.
10. The arbitral tribunal erred in holding that the appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.
11. The arbitral tribunal erred in deliberating upon the question of assignment of the share purchase agreement by the appellant to O.Armugaswamy. The question of assignment did not form part of the arbitral agreement and consequently that question was not arbitral by the arbitral tribunal.
12. The deliberations on the part of arbitral tribunal in so far as assignment was in excess. Off the jurisdiction confirmed upon it by the arbitration agreement also by the order of horrible High Court of Karnataka under section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation. Act 1996.
13. The arbitral tribunal error in holding that consequent upon such alleged assignment the 7 Com.AS.No.43/2016 applicant had relinquished they share purchase agreement.
14. The arbitral tribunal erred in holding that the alleged assignment also resulted in an estopple, preventing the appellant from invoking arbitration clause.
15. The Arbitral tribunal erred in the holding that there was a suppression of fact on the part of the appellant insofar as the repetition challenging the notification by the slum board.
16. The Arbitral tribunal act you have noticed that the set it effect was on the part of the respondent.
Find it was the respondent consequently who had suppressed the material facts.
17. The Arbitral tribunal error in holding that respondent faced severe hardship.
18. The arbitral tribunal ought to have noticed that respondent has neither created nor proved hardship or damages.
19. The arbitral tribunal ought to have noticed that it has been elicited that the respondent had continuously earned rentals from the property and also had retained the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000 admittedly paid by the appellant to the respondent.
20. The Arbitral tribunal ought to have noticed that 8 Com.AS.No.43/2016 there has been no pleading in relation to hardship being suffered by the respondent and consequently was not entitled to forfeiture.
21. The Arbitral tribunal ought to have noticed that burden was on the respondent to prove that it was justified in forfeiting the amount and that the stipulated amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was not panel in nature.
22. The Arbitral tribunal error in holding that om swami as an assignee was the only one entitled to invoke the arbitration clause.
23. The arbitral tribunal furthers error in holding that there was no termination of proceedings in accordance with section 29 a of arbitration and conciliation act. 1996 as incorporated by the ordinance dated 23 October 2015. At the time when the question of termination was raised by the claimant slash appellant the arbitral proceedings had clearly been terminated.
24. section 29 A as incorporated by the arbitration and conciliation ordinance 2015 was retrospective in nature and was therefore. Applicable to pending proceedings also since it was procedural in nature. It is therefore submitted that the arbitral proceedings before the arbitral tribunal stood automatically terminated following the tenor of the arbitration and conciliation. Act. The said termination is saved by section 27(2) of arbitration and conciliation act 2015 read with section 6 of general clause act.
9Com.AS.No.43/2016
25. The award passed by the arbitral tribunal was wide as it had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings upon the automatic termination of the proceedings.
26. The word is is therefore not varied under the law as it is existed during the time of the ordinance. The tribunal prevented the appellant from presenting his case by challenging the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by it consequently the award is liable. Rupees sector side under section 34(2)(iii) of the act also.
27. Since the arbitral tribunal has referred to assignment of om swami while exercising its discretion said finding is not separable. From the rest of the award and therefore the entire award is required to be set side. The entire outcome of the proceedings is also in conflict with the public policy of India in view of the fact that it opposes the most basic notions morality or justice. The award suffered from patent illegality.
Hence this petition.
3. The Respondent filed objection by stating that, the plaintiff has filed to make at any ground enumerated under Section 34 (2) or (2A) of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in preferring the present proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. No grounds under Section 34 (2) or (2A) of the act having been made out, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
10Com.AS.No.43/2016 The plaintiff is challenging the factual determination made by this arbitral tribunal that the plaintiff had failed to show that he had sufficient funds and that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations. It is settled law that the arbitrator appointed by the parties is a final judge of the facts and the said factual determination made by the arbitrator cannot be interfered with by the courts.
The plaintiff has approached this court by suppressing material facts, including the fact that the plaintiff has failed to adhere to the terms of the share purchase agreement and has failed to fulfill his obligations under the share purchase agreement and has never been ready and willing to perform the same. The plaintiff had also purportedly assigned his right under the share purchase agreement to one Mr. O Armugaswamy. This being the case, clearly the present appeal is not even maintainable. There was no document produced to show the plaintiff had sufficient funds at every point of time since the date of execution of the share purchase agreement. Therefore the learned arbitrator rightly held that there was absence of funds. In any event, the same is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered by the court. The documents that the plaintiff refers to here are all dated prior to the execution of 11 Com.AS.No.43/2016 the share purchase agreement and not a single document is produced subsequent to the date of execution of Ex.C.1. It is also evidence from the fact that the cheques issued by the plaintiff were dishonored that the plaintiff never had the financial capacity he falsely claims to have had. It is abundantly clear that the plaintiff herein was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the same is proved by the fact that the cheques given by the plaintiff to the defendants herein were dishonored. The findings that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his obligations is a finding of fact and this court cannot interfere in the same. When the plaintiff herein had purportedly assigned all his rights under the share purchase agreement to a third party, there was no question of specific performance of the share purchase agreement. Therefore the learned arbitrator has rightly deliberated on the purported assignment of rights to O.Arumugasamy.
On account of delay and a lapse of so many years, the respondents suffered severe losses and hardships and the same was established before the learned arbitrator. The learned arbitrator rightly held the same. The said amendment came into force only on 23.12.2015 while the award in the present case 12 Com.AS.No.43/2016 was already passed on 11th December 2015 by the learned arbitrator. Moreover the said amendment is not at all retrospective in nature as is being falsely stated by the plaintiff herein and is not applicable to the proceedings in the present case before the arbitral tribunal. Even assuming for argument sake that the said amendment is retrospective in nature, the arbitral award in the present case had already been passed by the learned arbitrator on 11th December, 2015 whereas the amendment came into force only on 23rd December, 2015. The averment that the said termination is saved by Section 27(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is false and baseless. The plaintiff is only trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court by misinterpreting provisions of the amended Act of 2015.
4. Heard arguments and perused the records.
5. 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?13
Com.AS.No.43/2016
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.14
Com.AS.No.43/2016
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 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.
15Com.AS.No.43/2016
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 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 view of the above mentioned discussions, the position in law is well settled that while dealing with an award under Section 34 of the Act, the Courts are not supposed to sit in appeal and re-appreciate the evidences as an appellate Court. Hence, the findings of the facts by the Arbitral Tribunal, if based on evidence, even where a different opinion can be held on the basis of that evidences, the findings given by the Arbitrator has to be accepted and the Courts cannot substitute its opinion. The power to interpret the contracts also lies with the Arbitrator. Once the Court reach to the conclusion that the Arbitrator has acted within its jurisdiction, even if the Courts 16 Com.AS.No.43/2016 are of the view that the opinion of the Arbitrator is wrong, the same cannot be disturbed unless it is against the public policy.
13. The plaintiff has taken a ground for setting aside the award that, the arbitral tribunal furthers error in holding that there was no termination of proceedings in accordance with section 29 a of arbitration and conciliation act. 1996 as incorporated by the ordinance dated 23 October 2015. At the time when the question of termination was raised by the claimant slash appellant the arbitral proceedings had clearly been terminated. section 29 A as incorporated by the arbitration and conciliation ordinance 2015 was retrospective in nature and was therefore. Applicable to pending proceedings also since it was procedural in nature. It is therefore submitted that the arbitral proceedings before the arbitral tribunal stood automatically terminated following the tenor of the arbitration and conciliation. Act. The said termination is saved by section 27(2) of arbitration and conciliation act 2015 read with section 6 of general clause act. The award passed by the arbitral tribunal was void as it had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings upon the automatic termination of the proceedings.
14. Section 27 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act reads as 17 Com.AS.No.43/2016 under:
(1) The arbitration and Conciliation (amendment) ordinance, 2015 (Order 9 of2015), is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the principal Act, as amended by the said ordinance, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the principal Act, as amended by this Act."
15. The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into force on January 1, 2016. However, the Act was deemed to be applicable from October 23, 2015:
* The Act applies to arbitration's that were initiated after October 23, 2015.
* The Act does not apply to arbitration's that were initiated before October 23, 2015, unless the parties agree otherwise.
The Act was passed by both houses of Parliament and received the President's assent on December 31, 2015. The Act was promulgated as an ordinance in October 2015.18
Com.AS.No.43/2016
16. Perused the award it reveals that arbitrator has passed on award dated 11.12.2015. Perused the records it reveals that in Ac No. 88/2014 is filed under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the 1st date of hearing is 28.03.2015 and the award was passed on 11.12.2015.
17. The arbitration and Conciliation 2015 Act applies to arbitration's that were initiated after October 23, 2015 and this act does not apply to arbitration's that were initiated before October 23, 2015, unless the parties agree otherwise.
18. In the present case, there is no such records to available that the parties have given a consent for proceedings of the arbitration proceedings under the arbitration and conciliation act 2015. So, under these circumstances, the arbitration Act 2015 is not applicable and since amended act is applicable only to the proceedings which were initiated after 23.10.2015. Under these circumstances the question of 'termination' raised by the petitioner is not accepted. On this ground the award cannot be set aside.
19. The plaintiff has taken a ground for setting aside the award that, the arbitral tribunal had to have noticed that all the documents produced by the appellant demonstrated his 19 Com.AS.No.43/2016 financial capacity to the tune of ₹88,00,00,000 crores. The arbitral tribunal error in stating that the documents demonstrating funds was not proof in accordance with law.
20. The learned arbitrator in para 39 discussed that, the questions and answer elicited in the cross-examination of the claimant would certainly reflect upon is conduct and they would certainly create doubt about his being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Moreover, as have already stated it is not possession of funds, but he must be able to part with the same. In this case, the very conduct of the claimant would indicate that he was not prepared to part with any amount in favour of the respondents as stipulated under the contract, the same being the essence of the contract.
21. The learned arbitrator has held that, the claimant has absolutely no explanation as to why he has issued the two cheques of Rs. 2.5 crores each and the same on presentation to his banker have been dishonoured for want of funds. This itself is sufficient to show that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. There is no nothing on record to show that the timely payment of installments of the 20 Com.AS.No.43/2016 total purchase price including the advance amount of purchase price as stipulated in the contract and on the dates and events as specified therein, was dependent upon the performance of any of the conditions of the contract, Except the final installment of the total purchase price, all other payments towards the total purchase price were required to be made by the claimant on the dates and events as specified in the contract and hence, it is not open to the claimant to contend that he did not make such payments because he was not required to make any payment before the conditions precedent are performed by the respondent and that, in this regard he was exercising due care and circumspection.
22. The learned arbitrator further held that, the claimant not only did not pay the amount as per the terms of the contract, but appear to have denounced the contract by assigning his rights under the share purchase agreement to Mr. O.Arumugasamy. The readiness and willingness of person seeking performance means that the person claiming performance and accept the performance when the time for performance arrives. Viewed from this background, the facts and circumstances here would show that the claimant was not ready and willing to perform his obligations more particularly 21 Com.AS.No.43/2016 the payment of installments towards the purchase price.
23. The plaintiff has taken an another ground for setting aside the award that, the arbitral tribunal erred in deliberating upon the question of assignment of the share purchase agreement by the appellant to O. Armugaswamy. The question of assignment did not form part of the arbitral agreement and consequently that question was not arbitral by the arbitral tribunal.
24. The learned arbitrator given findings that, from the material on record, one thing is very clear tha Mr.O.Arumugasamy is not an altogether a stranger and there appears to be some transaction between the claimant and the said Mr.O.Arumugasamy, which is sought to be suppressed by the claimant in this case. It would prima-facie appear from the material on record that the claimant R. Krishna Murthy appeared to have entered into a contract dated 03.03.2006 with Mr.O.Arumugasamy, whereby or where- under the claimant has transferred or assigned his rights under the Share Purchase Agreement in favour of the third party assignee Mr.O.Arumugasamy and received benefits there under. Also, there is nothing on record to indicate whether the claimant had 22 Com.AS.No.43/2016 taken any effective steps against the third party assignee Mr. O.Arumugasamy to avoid such contract between him and Mr. O.Arumugasamy and returned the benefits received there under by him. On the other hand it shows that he has still retained the benefits received thereunder.
25. The learned arbitrator held that, The claimant having assigned his rights under the Share Purchase Agreement in favour of third party Mr.O.Arumugasamy and committing breach of the contract, cannot seek assignee performance of the Share Purchase Agreement and it would also reflect upon his conduct apart from creating doubt about his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the obligations under the contract. The fact that there was a valid assignment is implicit in the very stand of the claimant and hence it can safely be concluded that the claimant has assigned his rights under the Share Purchase Agreement to a third party assignee Mr.O.Arumugasamy and received benefits there-under. II according to the claimant the said assignment was not given effect to, he ought to have got it adjudicated before a competent forum and then invoked the arbitration clause under the Share Purchase Agreement. The assignment of his rights under the Share Purchase Agreement in favour of a third party assignee Mr.O.Arumugasamy will 23 Com.AS.No.43/2016 tantamount to relinquishment of his claim to further performance of the remaining part of the contract. In a case for specific performance of contract, greater degree of certainty is required and it demands a clear, definite and precise understanding of all the terms, they must be exactly ascertained before their performance can be enforced. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I decline to grant the relief of specific performance to the claimant. Moreover, the claimant is also estopped from seeking performance in view of his own conduct of assigning his rights under the Share Purchase Agreement in favour Mr.O.Arumugasamy. The claimant by his conduct wilfully caused respondents to believe the existence of valid assignment in favour of Mr.O.Arumugasamy. It would be of some relevance to note here its that events subsequent to the transaction of Share Purchase Agreement having a direct nexus with the facts and circumstances of seeking performance cannot be put out of consideration.
The above findings given by the arbitral tribunal based on evidence. It is settled principle of law that, the findings given by the arbitrator has to accepted, the courts cannot substitute its opinion. The power of to interpret the contract also lies with 24 Com.AS.No.43/2016 arbitrator. So, the arbitral award is based on the evidence and contract. Hence, on the above ground the award cannot be set aside.
26. The plaintiff has taken an another ground for setting aside the award that, the Arbitral tribunal ought to have noticed that burden was on the respondent to prove that it was justified in forfeiting the amount and that the stipulated amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was not panel in nature.
27. The learned arbitrator further held that, the respondent is certainly entitled, in terms of clause 5.1 of Article V of the share purchase agreement to forfeit the advance amount of Rs. 2 crore on account of the failure to perform the essential terms of the contract by the claimant. Advance purchase price of a sum of Rs. 2 crore paid by the claimant on signing of the share purchase agreement was in the nature of the earnest money or the guarantee amount. It is fairly well settled that the earnest money/advance purchase price is part of the purchase price when the transaction goes forward, it is forfeited when the transaction falls through by reason of the fault or failure of the vendee/claimant.
25Com.AS.No.43/2016 The findings of the arbitration is impugned award as per the facts, contract, law of justice and cannot be interfered with.
28. The Superior Courts have repeatedly held that it is not permissible to a Court to examine the correctness of the findings of the arbitrator, as if it were sitting in appeal over his findings. The findings of fact by the arbitral tribunal, if based on evidence, even where a different opinion can be held on the basis of that evidence, the findings given by the arbitrator has to be accepted and the Courts cannot substitute its opinion. The power to interpret the contract also lies with the arbitrator. Once the courts reach to the conclusion that the arbitrator has acted within its jurisdiction, even if the courts are of the view that the opinion of the arbitrator is wrong the same cannot be disturbed unless it is against the public policy. In the present case in any of the grounds urged by the Plaintiff he has contended that the Impugned Award is against the public policy or that there is any patent illegality in the said Award.
29. By keeping in mind about the said legal aspects, I am of the opinion that the Arbitral Award is not marred by any patent illegality, as there is no contravention of the substantive law of India, which would result in the death knell of an Arbitral 26 Com.AS.No.43/2016 Award. It is also observed that there is no patent illegality in the Arbitral Award, which must go to the root of the matter. The Arbitral Award is also a well reasoned and a speaking award. The Arbitral Award is also held to not be in contravention of Section 28(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, which pertains to the terms of the contract, trade usages applicable to the nature of contract and substance of dispute. Hence, the above-mentioned any of the grounds are not available for the Plaintiff under Sub-Section (2) and Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
30. Having given my careful consideration to the submissions urged and the complete case record in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, I am of the view that is not a fit and proper case for exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and interfere with the Arbitral Award and the same is upheld. Hence, I answer this Point in the "Negative".
31. Point No. 2 :- Therefore, I proceed to pass the following Order.
27Com.AS.No.43/2016 ORDER The Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed.
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 28th day of November, 2024).
(SUMANGALA S. BASAVANNOR), LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.