Bangalore District Court
Sri.Kamalakara Naidu.V vs Unknown on 18 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.87]
Present:
Sri.SUNIL ANDANEPPA SHETTAR, B.Sc., LLB., (SPL)
LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2022
Com.A.A.No.117/2021
Plaintiff/s : 1. Sri.Kamalakara Naidu.V,
aged about 46 years,
S/o Shiva Bhushan Naidu,
Residing at No.209, 1st Floor,
R.V.Lakshaman Vilas Apartments,
2nd Main, 2nd Cross,
Ramajenaya Nagar, Chikkallasandra,
Bangalore-560 061.
2. Smt.Shilpa
aged about 38 years,
D/o N.Damodhar Naidu,
Both are residing at Flat No.006,
Kalpatharu Royal Abode,
Hanumagiri Nagar, Chikkalasandra,
Bangalore-560 061.
(By D.J. Advocate)
- Vs -
Defendant/s :
1. Sri.B.N.Balakrishna,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o B.Narasimhulu,
Residing at No.1, Prakruthi,
1st 'A' Cross Sai Nagara, Arehalli,
Bangalore-560 061.
2 Com.A.A.No.117/2021
2. Sri.N.D.Manjunath,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o late N.C Damodhar Naidu ,
#388/22, 8th Main , Hanumanth Nagar,
Bangalore-560 019.
3. Smt.B.Mamatha
Aged about 38 years,
W/o B.N.Balakrishna
Residing at No.474, 9th Cross,
Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,
BSK 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560 085.
4. M/s Silver Waves Constructions
A registered partneship firm having its
office at No.519, 12th Main, BSK 2nd stage
Padmanabhanagara, Bangalore-560 070,
Represented by its partnership
(i) Sri.B.N.Balakrishna
(ii) Sri.N.D.Manjunath and
(iii) Sri B.Mamatha
(By R.1 & 3 by M.V.M Advocate)
(By R.2 & 4 by V.S.K, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is the petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an order of interim measure of protection by way of injunction restraining the respondents form alienating, encumbering or creating third party interest over schedule 'B' property pending appointment of an arbitrator in terms of 3 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 clause-I of Re-constitution of Partnership Deed dated 31.05.2013.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as narrated in the petition are as under:-
That the respondents along with Smt. Parvathi K.V, Sri. Chandrashekar Naidu and the petitioner No.1 commenced the business of construction of residential houses and other inter- connected business by virtue of registered partnership deed dated 07.04.2011 under the name and style M/s Silver Waves Constructions. The partnership firm has developed landed properties into residential complexes with several land owners by entering into Joint Development Agreement, which are as under:
(a) in the year 2011 Silver Waves Elite was commenced and the sale of all the apartments was completed in the year 2013;
(b) In the year 2013 Silver Waves Elegance was commenced and the sale of all the apartments was completed in the year 2015;
(c) In the year 2013 Silver Waves Swastik was commenced and the sale of all the apartments was completed in the year 2015; and 4 Com.A.A.No.117/2021
(d) In the year 2014 Silver Waves Royal was commenced and the sale of all the apartments is in process even till this date.
3. The aforesaid firm came to be re-constituted and the partners by name Sri.B.Chandrshekara Naidu and Sri.Parvathi K.V desired to retire and the petitioner No.2 desired to join the firm as a partner and accordingly, the re-constitution deed came to be executed on 31.05.2013 between the petitioners and the respondents No.1 to 3 and the said fact was intimated to the Registrar of Firms on 08.07.2013. By virtue of the said Re-constitution Partnership Deed dated 31.05.2013 the petitioners No.1 and 2 were allotted 16.66% and 33.36% respectively in the loss and profit of the firm. Further the petitioner No.1 has invested a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards capital of the firm at the time of incorporation of the original partnership deed.
4. It is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.2 has joined the firm on 31.05.2013 by transferring a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- through the respondent No.2, who is his brother and hence, the petitioner No.2 was entitled for 33.36% of profit and loss in the firm. Since the petitioners were busy with their personal work and commitments, they had 5 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 nominated the respondents No.1 and 2 as managing partners to manage the day to day affairs of the firm.
5. It is the allegation of the petitioners that the respondents No.1 to 3 have not complied with the terms and conditions of the partnership and particularly the respondents No.1 and 2 have not furnished the books of accounts, receipt, day book, vouchers, bank statements, audit reports etc. for any of the financial years since 2011 in order to mis- appropriate the funds of the firm.
6. It is also the case of petitioners that the petitioner No.2 is the sister of respondent No.2 and after the partition in their family in terms of partition deed dated 25.03.2015, the respondent No.2 hatched a conspiracy in collusion with respondents No.1 and 3 and started functioning detrimental to the interest of the applicants with an intention to cause wrongful loss. The petitioners suspect that the respondents have unauthorizedly opened bank accounts in different banks and have withdrawn amounts without accounting for the same. The petitioners had approached the respondent on several occasions seeking accounts and other particulars of the firm, but the respondents claimed that all the said records are available with the chartered accountant of the firm by name Sri.Thayagaraju. The said Thyagaraju has not shared any 6 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 of the said documents though the petitioners are the partners of the firm. It is alleged that the respondents No.1 to 3 in collusion with the chartered accountant have misappropriated and siphoned the funds of the firm for which the petitioners are lawfully entitled. The respondents No.1 to 3 are not co- operating with the petitioners by furnishing the books of account, audit reports etc.
7. The respondent No.2 was appointed as a managing partner of the firm to look-after the day to day affairs of the firm since the respondent No.2 being in proximate relationship with the petitioners and has reposed trust in functioning of the firm. The duty is cast upon the respondents in terms of the partnership deed to prepare the profit and loss account, balance sheet and other accounting activity of the firm and share the same with the other partners of the firm and also furnish the same before the competent authority.
8. It is also the case of the petitioners that the partnership firm having entered into a Joint Development Agreement coupled with a General Power of Attorney dated 05.05.2014 has completed the construction of apartments over the land bearing Sy.No.218/4 measure 1 acre 11 guntas situated at Kengeri Village of Bangalore south Taluk (BBMP khata Sl.No.6189 property No.218/4 measuring 55,339 square 7 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 feet) duly converted for residential purpose as per the conversion order dated 19.11.2013 i.e. schedule 'A' property. The petitioners upon making inquiries came to known that the respondents have sold all the apartments except seven apartments, i.e. schedule 'B' property.
9. It is also the case of the petitioners that they never withdrawn a single penny from the partnership firm either from the capital account or profits and whereas the respondents have withdrawn money from their capital account as well as profits in contrary to the terms of the partnership and misappropriated the same. The act of the respondents amount to criminal breach of trust, cheating and mischief. The petitioners have also issued a legal notice dated 12.07.2021 calling upon the respondents to furnish the accounts and to participate in a joint audit of the firm by an independent professional auditor failing which to get an arbitrator appointed to resolve the dispute.
10. It is also the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents are making hectic efforts to alienate the remaining seven flats i.e., schedule 'B' property and misappropriate the sale proceeds denying the entitlement of the petitioners. Hence, on these grounds the petitioners are seeking interim measure of protection on the ground that they 8 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 have been denied their capital amount money and also profits. It is further contended that if the interim measure of protection is not granted, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
11. In pursuance to the notice of the petition, the respondents have appeared through their respective counsels and resisted the petition by filing their written statements.
12. The respondents No.1 and 3 have filed their common written statement and denied the averments of the petition in toto. Likewise the respondent No.2 and 4 have filed their common written statement and denied the averments of the petition in toto. Though the respondents No.1 and 3 and respondents No.2 and 4 have filed their separate written statements, but the contentions raised by them are one and the same.
13. The fact that the existence of the partnership deed dated 07.04.2011 under the name and style of M/s Silver Wave Constructions and its business as averred in the petition is admitted. The respondents have also admitted the Re- constitution of Partnership Deed dated 31.05.2013. It is alleged that the petitioner has suppressed the initial capital contribution made by the partners. The partners by name Sri.B.N.Balakrishna, Chandrashekar Naidu and Kamalakar 9 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 Naidu have made initial capital contribution of Rs.25,00,000/- each. The respondent No.2 has made initial capital contribution of Rs.28,00,000/- in his name as well as contributed a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- in the name of his mother Smt. K.V.Parvathy. The petitioners have deliberately suppressed the initial contributions made by the partners.
14. The respondents have denied the contribution made by the petitioner No.2 and that she is entitled for share of 33.36% of profit and loss in the partnership firm. It is further contended that the petitioner No.2 has not contributed any amount muchless the alleged sum of Rs.80,00,000/-. Infact the entire capital standing credit to the capital account of Smt.K.V.Parvathi was transferred to the capital of respondent No.2 and she was allotted 33.36% of share in the firm and accordingly, per capital in the firm was accounted and this fact has been suppressed by the petitioners. It is the respondent No.2 who has taken initiation and interest in transferring the capital of K.V.Parvathi to petitioner No.2 as partner in the firm with 33.36% share in the firm. The respondents have admitted that the respondents No.1 and 2 are the managing partners of the firm, but denied the fact that since the petitioner were busy in their personal work and commitments had nominated them as managing partners of the firm. The allegation that the 10 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 respondents have not furnished the accounts receipts, vouchers etc., to the petitioners is denied. The allegations of mis-appropriation of the funds of the firm by the respondents is also denied.
15. It is further contended that as per clause.14 of the re-constitution of partnership deed, the partners shall have free access to the books of accounts, inspection of accounts and take extracts of the same during business hours. The allegations against the chartered account by name Thyagaraju are also denied and disputed. It is the contention of the respondent that the said chartered accountant Thyagaraju is not in the custody of the alleged documents as claimed by the petitioners. Further the allegations that the marketing officer of the partnership firm have sold all the apartments except 'B' schedule properties are denied as false. The contentions of the petitioners that they have not withdrawn any money or received any profits of the firm and it is the respondents who have withdrawn money from the bank and mis-appropriated the same is denied and disputed. Further the allegations that the respondents and the chartered accountants have misappropriated and embezzled the funds of the firm is denied. The cause of action for the petition and the rest of averments of the petition are denied and disputed. The 11 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 respondents also claim that the petition is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11(a) of C.P.C. The valuation made and payment of court fee is also denied and disputed. The respondents also contend that the petition is barred by limitation as per article 137 of Indian Limitation Act.
16. It is also the case of the respondent that they have already issued reply notice on 30.07.2021 through their advocate to the petitioners. The petitioners have not made out a prima-facie case and balance of convenience does not lie in their favour. If the injunction as prayed in the petition is granted, it is the respondents who will be put to irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in any terms. The interim order of injunction already granted has to be vacated and the petition has to be dismissed.
17. As per the provisions of the arbitration and conciliation act, if the order of injunction is obtained by the petitioners, they will have to initiate arbitrial proceedings within stipulated period, but the petitioners have failed to do so and hence the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
18. The IT returns, audit reports, balance sheet, etc pertaining to M/s Waves Constructions have already been submitted to the IT department after proper audit and the copies of the same are available with the petitioners. The 12 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 being the parties to the registered partition deed dated 23.05.2015 are aware of the fact that petitioner No.2 has been allotted share of 33.36% in the partnership firm. The chartered accountant Sri.N.Thayagaraju has properly discharged his professional duties and false allegations have been made against the respondent No.3 who is the wife of respondent No.1 is unnecessarily referred in the alleged legal notice. The allegations made against the respondents amounts to defamation punishable under the provisions of IPC. Hence, on these grounds the respondents have prayed to dismiss the petition.
19. Based on the contentions of the respective parties and the materials available on record, the following points arise for my consideration:-
(1) Whether the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds for grant of an interim measure of protection as claimed in the petition as per Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ?
(2) What Order ?
20. Having heard the arguments of both the counsels and considering the entire materials available on record, I answer the above points as under:
13 Com.A.A.No.117/2021
Point No. 1 : - In the Affirmative
Point No. 2 : - As per my final orders for
the following reasons.
REASONS
21. Point No.1:- Before proceeding my discussion with respect to the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties to the proceedings, it is necessary to mention the admitted facts.
22. The existence of the registered partnership firm i.e., respondent No.4 by virtue of registered partnership deed dated 07.04.2011, which is involved in the business of construction of residential houses, commercial complexes and other interconnected businesses of which the petitioner No.1, respondents No.1 to 3, Smt.Parvathi K.V and Sri.D.Chndrashekar Naidu were the partners is an admitted fact. The respondent No.4 firm has developed various landed properties and has constructed residential complexes by entering into joint development agreement with the land owners is also not disputed. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent No.4 firm came to be re-constituted on 31.05.2013, under which Sri.D.Chandrashekar Naidu and Smt.Parvathi K.V came to be retired and the petitioner No.2 was inducted as a partner. The fact that the respondents No.1 14 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 and 2 are the managing partners of the respondent No.4 is not in dispute. The respondent No.4 firm has undertaken and completed the construction of apartments over the land bearing Sy.No.218/4 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas situated at Kengeri village by virtue of the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney dated 05.05.2014 is also an undisputed fact.
23. The petitioners have furnished the certified copies of the registered partnership deed dated 07.04.2011, reconstitution deed dated 31.05.2013, acknowledgment of the register of firms, partition deed dated 25.03.2015, copy of the Joint Development Agreement and power of attorney dated 05.05.2014, copy of agreement for sharing of apartment dated 05.02.2015, copies of legal notice, postal receipts and encumbrance certificate. On going through the said documents the existence of the respondent No.4 firm and that the petitioners and respondents No.1 to 3 are the partners of the firm and the firm has undertaken and completed the construction of the apartments by virtue of Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney are not disputed. The dispute raised by the petitioners relates to furnishing of books of accounts, receipts, daily books, ledgers etc., and also the profit and loss pertaining to the respondent No.4 firm as 15 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 well as mis-appropriation and siphoning of funds of the firm. The petitioners have made various allegations against the respondents No.1 to 3 of non-furnishing the books of accounts, receipts, tax audit reports from the financial year 2011 onwards etc, and mis-appropriation of funds of the respondent No.4 in collusion with the chartered accountant by name Thyagaraju. It is also alleged that the respondents No.1 to 3 have failed to prepare the profit and loss account and balance sheet of the respondent No.4 in terms of the partnership agreement and furnish the necessary information to the petitioners. It is also alleged that the respondents have misappropriated and siphoned the funds of the firm and the act of the respondents amounts to criminal breach of trust, cheating and mischief. It is also alleged that the respondents No.1 to 3 have illegally sold the flats constructed in schedule-A property for their unlawful enrichment and to defraud the petitioners.
24. On the other hand the respondents have denied all the allegations made against the respondents No.1 to 3 as well as their chartered accountant. The respondents claim that they have maintained the proper books of accounts of the firm and the petitioners being the partners of the respondent No.4 firm are at liberty to inspect all the documents pertaining to the 16 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 firm, but they have failed to do so. The respondents have denied the investments made by the petitioners as averred in para No.5 and 6 of the petition.
25. With this factual background, the court has to ascertain as to whether the dispute raised by the petitioners is a commercial dispute or not. The averments of the petition and the materials available on record disclose that the dispute between the parties is in respect of accounts of the respondent No.4 and hence, the nature of dispute between the parties is a commercial dispute as defined U/s 2 (1) (c) of the commercial courts act, 2015 and the specified value of the subject matter of the dispute between the parties is more than Rs.3,00,000/- as prescribed U/s 2 (1) (i) of the said act and hence, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
26. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the respective parties it is necessary to go through the provisions of the Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
9. Interim measures, etc. by Court.--A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36, apply to a court--
(i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or a person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or
(ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters, namely:--
17 Com.A.A.No.117/2021
(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;
(b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;
(c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject-matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence;
(d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver;
(e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the court to be just and convenient, and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it.
27. As per Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties are permitted to seek interim measure in order to safeguard their interest if the other party violates the terms and conditions of the agreements. Any contracting party is at liberty to file an application U/s 9 of the said act for interim measure during or before the arbitration proceedings. Merely because there is an arbitration agreement between the parties to the suit is not sufficient to grant an interim relief. The party who has no intention to ultimately refer the dispute to arbitration and seek final relief cannot be permitted to seek interim relief.
18 Com.A.A.No.117/2021
28. At this stage it is necessary to go through the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa reported in 2006 SCC online Orissa 68, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has discussed the requirement of Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court at para No.29 has discussed that :
" The order U/s.9 can be passed by way of an interim measure of protection before or during the arbitral proceeding or at any time after making of arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Sec.36 of the Act. So, it is an interim measure of protection. The act is implicit that the dispute must have arisen, it is referable to arbitration tribunal and when an application U/s.9 is filed before commencement of the arbitral proceeding, there has to be manifest intention on the part of the applicant to take recourse to the arbitral proceeding, if at the time when application U/s.9 is filed, the proceeding has not commenced U/s.21 of the Act. While exercising the jurisdiction U/s.9, the court should satisfy itself that effective steps have been taken to commence the arbitral proceeding. The court could also pass a conditional order to put the applicant to such term as it may deem fit with a view to see that steps".19 Com.A.A.No.117/2021
"The party having succeeded in securing an interim measure of protection before arbitral proceedings cannot afford to sit and sleep over the relief, conveniently forgetting the 'proximately contemplated' or 'manifestly intended' arbitral proceedings itself. If arbitral proceedings are not commenced within a reasonable time of an order U/s.9, the relationship between the order U/s.9 and the arbitral proceedings would stand snapped and the relief allowed to the party shall cease to be an order made 'before' i.e., in contemplation or arbitral proceedings. The court, approached by a party with an application U/s.9, is justified in asking the party and being told how and when the party approaching the court proposes to commence the arbitral proceedings. Rather, the scheme in which Sec.9 is placed obligates the court to do so. The court may also while passing an order U/s.9 put the party on".
29. It is an established principle of law that in order to get the relief of injunction the petitioner has to make out prima-facie case and the balance of convenience should lean in favour of petitioner. The prima-facie case means that there 20 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 are issues to be tried and points and pleas to be decided and determined by the court.
30. On going through the contentions raised by the respective parties, the dispute relates to furnishing of the books of accounts i.e., profit and loss account and balance sheet of the respondent No.4 firm. The contentions raised by the respective parties to the proceedings goes to show that a dispute has arisen between the parties in respect of the respondent No.4 firm and the parties to the proceedings are governed by the reconstitution of partnership deed dated 31.05.2013 pertaining to respondent No.4 firm. The said deed contains an arbitration agreement in the event of any dispute concerning the partnership firm. Clause-l of the said agreement reads as under:
"In the event of any dispute concerning the partnership or this deed or interpretation and/for enforcement of any of the terms and conditions contained herein, the same shall be referred to arbitration and the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act shall apply to such proceedings".
Further clause-m of the said agreement says that:
"Anything not stipulated herein shall be decided by mutual consent of the parties hear to and with reference to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act". 21 Com.A.A.No.117/2021
31. On going through the aforesaid mentioned clauses of the reconstitution of partnership deed dated 13.05.2013, it is crystal clear that in the event of any dispute arising between the partners of the respondent No.4 in respect of the partnership firm shall be resolved through the process of arbitration. Further anything or any dispute, which is not stipulated in the agreement shall be decided my mutual consent of the parties and with reference to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act.
32. On going through the contentions of the respective parties and the materials available on record, the dispute has arisen between the parties to the proceedings in respect of respondent No.4 firm and the said dispute has to be resolved through the process of arbitration in terms of the partnership deed and reconstitution of the partnership deed. Whether the petitioners have invested their money as averred in the petition or not is a matter to be agitated before the arbitral tribunal. Likewise the all the contentions raised by the respective parties to the proceedings are the grounds to be agitated before the arbitral tribunal. Though the respondents have claimed in their written statement that still there is availability of capital funds yet to be withdrawn by the respondents, but the respondents have not placed any 22 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 documents to that effect. It is a fact to be noted that initially an exparte interim order of temporary injunction was granted against the respondents till next date of hearing, which came to be extended from time to time till further orders.
33. On going through the pleadings of the respective parties and the materials available on record, the court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for interim measure of protection by way of injunction restraining the respondents from alienating, encumbering or creating third party interest in respect of schedule-B property till commencement of the arbitration proceedings. At this stage considering the nature of the dispute between the parties the properties i.e., the schedule-B properties should remain intact till commencement of the arbitrtaion proceedings. The petitioner has also furnished the copy of the presentation form pertaining to Civil Misc. Petition No.403/2021 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka along with a memo dated 17.03.2022, which goes to show that the petitioners herein have initiated the proceedings under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act for appointment of an arbitrator.
34. On going through the averments of the petition and the entire materials available on record, the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds for grant of an injunction as 23 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 prayed in the petition. In otherwords the petitioners have made out a prima-facie case and the balance of convenience also leans in favour of the petitioner. If the interim measure of protection as prayed in the petition is not granted, it is the petitioners who will be put to irreparable injury.
35. The respondent have also raised a contention that the petition is barred by limitation under article 137 of the limitation act. The cause of action for the petition is mentioned as it arose on the dates of execution of the partnership deed and reconstitution of partnership deed and finally on 12.07.2021 when the legal notice was issued to the respondents to make good the losses incurred by them. On going through the entire averments of the petition, the actual cause of action arose to the petitioners to institute the petition only when the respondents have failed to respond to the legal notice dated 12.07.2021. though the petitioners have mentioned that the cause of action arose on the dates of execution of the partnership deed and reconsitution of the partnership deed, but the real cause of action to institute the petition accrues only on the date of issuance of the legal notice. Hence, the petition is very much within the period of limitation. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners are entitled for interim measure of protection as 24 Com.A.A.No.117/2021 prayed in the petition. Hence, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the
applicants/petitioners U/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is hereby allowed with costs.
It is hereby ordered that the respondents are restrained by an order of injunction from alienating, encumbering or creating third party interests in respect of schedule-B property till commencement of the arbitration proceedings.
[Dictated to the stenographer online, transcribed & computerized by her, corrected on computer and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 18th day of August, 2022] (SUNIL.A.SHETTAR) LXXXVI Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.