Karnataka High Court
M/S. Brio Infotech Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Marlabs Softward Pvt. Ltd. on 17 March, 2014
Author: Mohan .M.Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014
BEFORE
HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
WP NO.56560 OF 2013(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. BRIO INFOTECH PVT. LTD.
PARTIES,
NO.118, 6TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
CHAMRAJPET,
BANGALORE - 560 018.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. HARISH S. KOLAR. ... PETITIONER
(By SRI. GANESH KUMAR R., ADV.)
AND :
M/S. MARLABS SOFTWARD PVT. LTD.,
NO.54, BOWRING TOWARDS,
BOWRING HOSPITAL ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. PARTHA SARATHY. ... RESPONDENT
* *** *
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2013 PASSED BY THE XIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
IN O.S.1621/2013 VIDE ANNEX-D AND CONSEQUENTLY TO
REFER THE PARTIES IN THE SAID SUIT TO ARBITRATION FOR
ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. GRANT AN
INTERIM ORDER TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
O.S.1621/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XIX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the matter for arbitration.
2. Admittedly, the agreement dated 11.4.2008 entered into between the parties contains the arbitration clause. Clause 14(a) of the Agreement makes it amply clear that in case of failure to settle the dispute amicably by mutual negotiations, the matter can be settled finally under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, the Court below ought to have referred the matter to arbitration.
The Court below however, relying upon Clause 14(b) of the arbitration agreement, rejected the application filed by the petitioner by observing that it is open for the parties to pursue their remedies before the Civil Court despite there being an arbitration clause. 3
3. The said reasoning of the Court below cannot be accepted. The parties can approach the Civil Court, if they want equitable relief as per clause 14(b) of the agreement. In this case, the dispute is with regard to money. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money. Therefore, the question to be determined is, as to whether, the defendant is liable to pay any sum of money to the plaintiff or not. Since the relief sought for is not equitable relief, Clause 14(b) of the agreement cannot be pressed into service. Accordingly, the Court below is not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
4. Hence, the petition is allowed. Impugned order stands quashed. The trial Court is directed to refer the matter to the Arbitration for adjudication of dispute between the parties as per Arbitration Clause.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sk/-