Bangalore District Court
Four Flavours Llp vs Mr. Deepak Sindhe on 3 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY [CCH84]
:Present:
Sri N.Sunil Kumar Singh, B.Com., LL.B.,
LXXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated on this the 3rd day of October 2020
COM.A.S.No.252/2018
Plaintiff Four Flavours LLP,
A limited liability partnership
having its registered office at
No.1107, A1,
Prestige Kensington Gardens,
No.17, HMT Factory Road,
Jalahalli, Bengaluru560013.
Represented by its Designated Parters
Mr. Nimish Bhatia & Mr. Brijesh D.K.
[By Sri. T.V, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
Defendants: 1. Mr. Deepak Sindhe,
S/o Dr. V.S.Lokanath Rao Sindhe,
aged about 52 years,
Residing at No.10, Castle Street,
Ashoknagar, Bengaluru560025
presently in New Jersey, USA and
represented by his
power of attorney holder
Mr. Suhail Ahmed,
S/o Mr. Abdul Khayum Sab,
aged about 44 years,
R/at No.27, East Street,
Neelasandra, Bengaluru560047.
2
CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc
2. Shri Justice A.N.Venugopala Gowda,
Former Judge,
High Court of Karnataka,
sole Arbitrator in AC 111/2017,
Arbitration & Conciliation Centre,
Khanija Bhavana,
#49, 3rd Floor, Race Course Road,
Bengaluru560001.
(By Sri.H.N.L, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 10/12/2018
Nature of the suit : Arbitration Suit
Date of commencement of :
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 03/10/2020
was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
01 09 23
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by plaintiff against the defendant U/S.34 (1) and (2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.
2. The case of plaintiff is that the defendant is the absolute owner of property bearing No.120, situated within the limits of BBMP, Ward No.76, Brigade Road, Bengaluru and constructed building and offered the same on lease which is commercial space consisting of 6000 sq.ft. in the ground floor and mezzanine floor with super built up area of 7800 sq.ft. After deliberation lease deed was executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff on 15/7/2015 with respect to said 3 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc property on monthly rent of Rs.6,00,000/ and lease deed was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. As per the terms of agreement monthly rent shall commence after expiry of rent free fit out period of 6 months starting from 1/4/2015 and defendant has provided 6 car parking area in the basement and also car parking in front of the premises. The plaintiff has paid security deposit of Rs.48,00,000/ which is refundable to plaintiff while vacating the premises. There was lockin period of 12 months from the date of said agreement, since the construction of building was not completed at the time of executing of such lease deed. The terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement is within the knowledge of both the plaintiff and defendant. Due to non completion of building business was not commenced by plaintiff in the rented premises at the stipulated time. After execution of such lease deed plaintiff has spent Rs.1,77,00,000/ for establishing modern kitchen, restaurant furniture & fixtures and interior design to run the restaurant in the rented premises. The said restaurant was opened by renowned chef Mr. Nimish Bhatia who is also one of the partner of plaintiff. Number of persons were employed to run the restaurant and also registered under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961.
3. The plaintiff could not able to commence business due to non completion of building and also sent email on 1/2/2016 with regard to difficulties faced by plaintiff to run 4 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc the restaurant. Anyhow the restaurant was launched to public on 14/2/2017 and to the surprise of plaintiff notice was received terminating the tenancy by the defendant and claiming unlawful rent from March 2016 to May 2016. The defendant has sent notice with illmotive and to get unlawful gain and demanded payment of Rs.18,44,967/ being rent and interest for the month of March 2016 to May 2016. Defendant also demanded Rs.48,00,000/ towards damages which is not sustainable. Due to the act of defendant since the plaintiff could not able to commence his business and he has sustained loss as detailed below:
Sl.No. Description Amount (INR) a) Towards damage for the loss
sustained on account of illegal 1,50,00,000 acts of the claimant.
b) Refund of security deposit 48,58,600
c) Towards loss of reputation and
goodwill of the respondent and 5,00,000
its brand
d) Towards TDS payable to income
tax department out of the 5,00,000
amount paid to the claimant.
e) Towards construction services
provided to the building at the 30,00,000
instance of the claimant.
TOTAL 2,38,58,600
5
CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc
4. Further notice issued by defendant was suitably replied by plaintiff and plaintiff has suffered total loss of Rs.2,17,00,000/ due to the act of defendant. The plaintiff have suffered loss of Rs.40,00,000/ by closing down of the restaurant and by incurring expenditure of Rs.1,77,00,000/ for interior decoration and furniture and also paid license fee of Rs.1,30,000/ to BBMP to get license for establishment. Anyhow the notice issued by defendant on 1/6/2016 is illegal which is not sustainable and plaintiff is not liable to pay any such damages or rent as claimed by defendant.
5. The defendant has approached Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and filed CMP No.116/2017 for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between plaintiff and defendant with regard to lease deed. The said application was allowed and sole Arbitrator was appointed who has registered case in AC No.111/2017 and issued notice to both the plaintiff and defendant to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal and plaintiff and defendant have appeared before the Arbitral Tribunal and putforth their claim and defendant herein has putforth his claim for Rs.18,44,976/ towards arrears of rent, Rs.10,55,385/ towards water and maintenance charges, Rs.24,00,000/ towards damages, Rs.75,60,000/ towards damages from 1/10/2016 to 30/9/2017 and Rs.6,30,500/ towards damages from 1/10/2018 to delivery of possession of the property and also claimed Rs.1,46,415/ towards maintenance, electricity charges of the leased 6 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc premises and Rs.10,00,000/ towards mental agony. Likewise the plaintiff herein also putforth his counter claim for Rs.1,50,00,000/ towards damages and loss sustained on account of illegal act of defendant, Rs.48,58,500/ towards refund of security deposit, Rs.5,00,000/ towards loss of reputation and goodwill, Rs.5,00,000/ towards TDS payable to Income Tax Department and Rs.30,00,000/ towards cost of construction incurred by one of the partner of plaintiff's business. During the course of arbitral proceeding the plaintiff herein has handed over key of schedule premises to the defendant on 16/2/2018. After recording evidence of both the sides the sole Arbitrator adjudicated the matter in AC No.111/2017 on 14/8/2018 and awarded to pay sum of Rs.1,38,00,000/ by the plaintiff herein to the defendant by deducting Rs.71,87,685/ and ultimately ordered to pay sum of Rs.66,12,315/ to the defendant by plaintiff herein and rejected the counter claim of plaintiff.
6. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the sole Arbitrator present suit is preferred by plaintiff on the following grounds. The impugned award passed by the sole Arbitrator is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. The learned sole Arbitrator has erred in passing award by allowing partial claim of defendant herein which is not sustainable. The sole Arbitrator has committed error in dismissing the counter claim of plaintiff herein which is in conflict with Section 73 of Indian Contract Act. The 7 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc sole Arbitrator has failed to consider the evidence and documents of both the sides on record in the right prospective. The finding of the sole Arbitrator to adjust the security deposit paid by plaintiff to the arrears of rent is entirely opposed to provisions of agreement entered between plaintiff and defendant. The learned Arbitrator has passed award without going through the law laid down by Apex Court of India. The award passed by the sole Arbitrator is opposed to provisions of law prescribed U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Hence it is prayed to set aside the arbitration award passed by the sole Arbitrator in AC No.111/2017 dated 14/8/2018 and prayed to decree the suit.
7. After appearance of defendant in the present suit, the defendant has not filed any written objection or statement, but case of the defendant no.1 is that he is the owner of non residential commercial building bearing No.120, situated at Brigade Road within the limits of BBMP, Bengaluru and after construction of commercial building on the said property it was leased on monthly rent of Rs.6,00,000/ to the plaintiff by executing registered lease deed dated 15/7/2017. It is admitted that sum of Rs.48,00,000/ was received by defendant no. 1 from the plaintiff as security deposit and they abide by the terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement of lease. It is also contended by defendant that the plaintiff failed to pay rent from March 2016 to May 2016. Thus he has issued legal notice on 1/6/2016 to plaintiff 8 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc determining the lease and terminated the tenancy and requested to handover vacant possession of the tenanted premises. To which the plaintiff has replied on 11/6/2016 which is claimed to be untenable by the defendant herein. It is further submitted by defendant no.1 that the defendant has sent rejoinder on 21/6/2016 and denied the breach of conditions of the lease deed and since the notice was not complied by plaintiff, the defendant no.1 has sent another notice on 1/3/2017 seeking consent of the plaintiff herein to appoint Arbitrator which was replied by the plaintiff herein on 15/3/2017 declining the consent to appoint Arbitrator suggested by the defendant no.1. Hence defendant no. 1 has constrained to file proceeding before Hon'ble High Court of Kanataka in CMP No.116/2017 which was allowed on 21/7/2017 and appointed the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between plaintiff and defendant with respect to lease deed and admittedly after appointment of such sole Arbitrator, the plaintiff and defendant no.1 have appeared before sole Arbitrator and defendant no.1 claimed that he has putforth his claim before the sole Arbitrator as detailed below:
Sl.No. Description Amount (INR)
1. a) Towards the arrears of rent 18,44,976/
b) Interest at 18% per annum
from 1/6/2016 to 8/9/2017 at 4,22,170/
18% p.a.
9
CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc
2. Water charges and maintenance 10,55,385/ arrears
3. Towards damages for the period between 01/06/2016 to 24,00,000/ 30/9/2016
4. a) The payment by way of damages for the period from 1/10/2016 to 30/09/2017 at 75,60,000/ Rs.6,30,000/ per month
b) Interest @ 18% per annum from 1/10/2016 to 8/9/2017 12,75,050/ at 18% per annum.
5. Rs.6,61,500/ per month by way of damages from 1/10/2017 to 29,98,800/ 16/0/22018.
6. Rs.1,46,450/ per month towards maintenance, electricity and water charges for the period 8,05,475/ 1/9/2017 till 16/2/2018.
7. Damages on account of mental agony, harassment and stress. 10,00,000/ TOTAL 1,93,61,856/ and denied the violation of terms of lease deed by the defendant no.1 herein. Likewise the plaintiff herein also put forth his counter claim before the sole Arbitrator as provided U/S.23(2A) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act as detailed below:
10CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc Sl.No. Description Amount (INR)
a) Towards damage for the loss sustained on account of illegal 1,50,00,000 acts of the claimant.
b) Refund of security deposit 48,58,600
c) Towards loss of reputation and
goodwill of the respondent and 5,00,000
its brand
d) Towards TDS payable to income
tax department out of the 5,00,000
amount paid to the claimant.
e) Towards construction services
provided to the building at the 30,00,000
instance of the claimant.
TOTAL 2,38,58,600
8. It is also submitted by plaintiff that after hearing both the sides and adducing evidence, the sole Arbitrator heard the matter and passed award in AC No.111/2017 on 14/8/2018 partly allowing the claim of defendant no.1 herein and ordered to pay sum of Rs.66,12,315/ out of the total amount of Rs.1,38,00,000/ by deducing 71,87,685/ along with interest @ 12% per annum from 8/9/2017 till date of realization.11
CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc
9. Aggrieved by the said award the present defendant no.1 has also filed Arbitration Suit No.227/2018 and prayed to set aside the arbitral award since partial award passed by the Arbitrator is opposed to public policy as provided U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act. At the meantime defendant no.1 herein has contended that the rejecting of counter claim by the sole Arbitrator is in accordance with law and the grounds urged by plaintiff to set aside the arbitral award are not sufficient. Thus the question of setting aside arbitral award with respect to rejection of counter claim of plaintiff herein is not opposed to law as provided U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the suit of plaintiff with cost.
10. Heard arguments of both the sides and perused LCR received by the sole Arbitrator.
11. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff made out grounds to set aside the Arbitral Award passed by the sole Arbitrator in AC 111/2017 dated 14/8/2018 U/S.34(1) & (2) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996?
2. What order?
12. My answer to the above points are as follows:
POINT No.1 : Negative.
POINT No.2 : As per final order for the following:12
CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc REASONS
13. POINT No.1 : Facts of the plaintiff's case is that defendant is the absolute owner of property bearing No.120, situated within the limits of BBMP, Ward No.76, Brigade Road, Bengaluru and constructed building and offered the same on lease which is commercial space consisting of 6000 sq.ft. in the ground floor and mezzanine floor with super built up area of 7800 sq.ft. After deliberation lease deed was executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff on 15/7/2015 with respect to said property on monthly rent of Rs.6,00,000/ and lease deed was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. As per the terms of agreement monthly rent shall commence after expiry of rent free fit out period of 6 months starting from 1/4/2015 and defendant has provided 6 car parking area in the basement and also car parking in front of the premises. The plaintiff has paid security advance of Rs.48,00,000/ which is refundable to plaintiff while vacating the premises. There was lockin period of 12 months from the date of said agreement, since the construction of building was not completed at the time of executing of such lease deed. The terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement is within the knowledge of both plaintiff and defendant. Due to non completion of building business was not commenced by plaintiff in the rented premises on the stipulated time. After execution of such lease deed plaintiff has spent 13 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc Rs.1,77,00,000/ for establishing modern kitchen, restaurant furniture & fixtures and interior design to run the restaurant in the rented premises. The said restaurant was opened by renowned chef Mr. Nimish Bhatia who is also one of the partner of plaintiff. Number of persons were employed to run the restaurant and also registered under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961.
14. The plaintiff could not able to commence the business due to non completion of building and also sent email on 1/2/2016 with regard to difficulties faced by plaintiff to run the restaurant. Anyhow the restaurant was launched to public on 14/2/2017 and to the surprise of plaintiff notice was received terminating the tenancy by the defendant and claiming unlawful rent from March 2016 to May 2016. The defendant has sent notice with illmotive and for unlawful gain and demanded payment of Rs.18,44,967/ being rent and interest for the month of March 2016 to May 2016. Defendant also demanded Rs.48,00,000/ towards damages which is not sustainable. Due to the act of defendant since the plaintiff could not able to commence his business and he has sustained loss as detailed below:
Sl.No. Description Amount (INR) a) Towards damage for the loss
sustained on account of illegal 1,50,00,000 acts of the claimant.
b) Refund of security deposit 48,58,600 14 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc
c) Towards loss of reputation and goodwill of the respondent and 5,00,000 its brand
d) Towards TDS payable to income tax department out of the 5,00,000 amount paid to the claimant.
e) Towards construction services
provided to the building at the 30,00,000
instance of the claimant.
TOTAL 2,38,58,600
15. Further notice issued by defendant was suitably replied by plaintiff and plaintiff has suffered total loss of Rs.2,17,00,000/ due to the act of defendant. The plaintiff have suffered loss of Rs.40,00,000/ by closing down of the restaurant and by incurring expenditure of Rs.1,77,00,000/ for interior decoration and furniture and also paid license fee of Rs.1,40,000/ to BBMP to get license for establishment. Anyhow notice issued by defendant on 1/6/2016 is illegal which is not sustainable and plaintiff is not liable to pay any such damages or rent as claimed by defendant.
16. The defendant has approached Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and filed CMP No.116/2017 for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between plaintiff and defendant with regard to lease deed. The said application was allowed and the sole Arbitrator was appointed who has 15 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc registered AC No.111/2017 and issued notice to both the plaintiff and defendant to appear before Arbitral Tribunal and plaintiff and defendant have appeared before Arbitral Tribunal and putforth their claim and defendant herein has putforth his claim for Rs.18,44,976/ towards arrears of rent, Rs.10,55,385/ towards water and maintenance charges, Rs.24,00,000/ towards damages, Rs.75,60,000/ towards damages from 1/10/2016 to 30/9/2017 and Rs.6,30,500/ towards damages from 1/10/2018 to delivery of possession of the property and also claimed Rs.1,46,415/ towards maintenance, electricity charges of the leased premises and Rs.10,00,000/ towards mental agony. Likewise the plaintiff herein also putforth his counter claim for Rs.1,50,00,000/ towards damages and loss sustained on account of illegal act of defendant, Rs.48,58,500/ towards refund of security deposit, Rs.5,00,000/ towards loss of reputation and goodwill, Rs.5,00,000/ towards TDS payable to Income Tax Department and Rs.30,00,000/ towards cost of construction incurred by one of the partner of plaintiff's business. During the course of arbitral proceeding the plaintiff herein has handed over key of schedule premises to the defendant on 16/2/2018. After recording evidence of both the sides the sole Arbitrator adjudicated the matter in AC No.111/2017 on 14/8/2018 and awarded to pay sum of Rs.1,38,00,000/ by the plaintiff herein to the defendant by deducting Rs.71,87,685/ and ultimately ordered to pay sum of Rs.66,12,315/ to the defendant by plaintiff herein and 16 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc rejected the counter claim of plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said award of sole Arbitrator for having rejected the claim of plaintiff the present suit is filed by plaintiff to set aside the award passed under the provisions of Section 34 (1) and (2) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.
17. On going through the award passed by sole Arbitrator and on hearing both the sides and on perusal of LCR produced before this court, it is not in dispute that defendant no.1 is the absolute owner of property bearing No.120, situated at Brigade Road, Bengaluru and the said property was leased on monthly rent of Rs.6,00,000/ to plaintiff by the defendant no.1 by executing lease deed dated 15/7/2015 and it is also not in dispute that on the date of execution of such lease agreement plaintiff has paid sum of Rs.48,00,000/ as security deposit to the defendant no.1. The execution of such lease agreement and the conditions stipulated therein is not in dispute between parties to the suit. But plaintiff herein has contended that at the time of execution of such lease agreement construction of building was not completed and after completion of building by the defendant no.1 he has started business on the leasehold property from December 2016 and till then possession of the leasehold property was not delivered to plaintiff by the defendant no.1. Even though the property was not delivered to the possession of plaintiff by the defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 has issued legal notice on 1/6/2016 17 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc terminating tenancy of leasehold property and directed to handover vacant possession and also claimed rent from March 2016 to May 2016 which is not sustainable, since by the time issuance of such notice by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff the business was not commenced by plaintiff. It is admitted that on the notice issued by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff to appoint an Arbitrator, the plaintiff has not consented and issued reply notice dated 15/3/2017. Thus the defendant no.1 constrained to file proceeding before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CMP 116/2017 to appoint an Arbitrator, so as to enable to resolve the dispute between plaintiff and defendant no.1 herein and admittedly the said proceeding was allowed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 21/7/2017 and sole Arbitrator was appointed to resolve the dispute of plaintiff and defendant no.1 as per agreement dated 15/7/2015.
18. After appointment of sole Arbitrator by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as per order in CMP 116/2017 dated 21/7/2017, the plaintiff and defendant no.1 have appeared before sole Arbitrator and putforth their claim before sole Arbitrator which was adjudicated by sole Arbitrator after adducing evidence by both the sides and hearing arguments. On going through the award passed by sole Arbitrator, the sole Arbitrator has taken into consideration all relevant documents and evidence on record of both the sides and by considering the same passed an award on 14/8/2018 in 18 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc AC 111/2017 by awarding sum of Rs.66,12,315/ payable by plaintiff herein to the defendant no.1 along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 8/9/2017. It is also admitted fact that the counter claim of plaintiff herein was rejected and aggrieved by the said award of Arbitrator, present defendant no.1 herein has preferred suit in AS No.227/2018 on the file of this court which is pending for adjudication simultaneously along with the present suit. On going through Arbitration Award, the Arbitrator has considered various decisions which are relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and decided the same in accordance with law. The award passed by sole Arbitrator cannot be held as opposed to public policy as provided U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
19. It is claimed by the plaintiff herein before the sole Arbitrator that after agreement dated 18/7/2015 to lease the property by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff the possession was not handed over for considerable long time. Hence he could not able to start business on the said property and he has heavily invested to set up modern kitchen and for interior decoration and furniture he has spent Rs.40,00,000/ and also spent Rs.1,40,000/ to obtain trade license from BBMP and incurred total expenditure of Rs.1,77,00,000/ and the restaurant business was started on 30/6/2017. But defendant no.1 has issued notice of termination illegally on 1/6/2016 which is not sustainable. It is also claimed by the 19 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc plaintiff that he has paid security deposit of Rs.48,00,000/ before occupying the tenanted premises and due to issuance of such notice he has lost his reputation and goodwill which he has earned to run his business on the tenanted premises and the loss suffered due to the act of defendant no.1 has to be compensated by way of damages Rs.1,50,00,000/ and the security deposit of Rs.48,58,600/ has to be refunded along with Rs.5,00,000/ towards loss of reputation and goodwill and Rs.5,00,000/ towards TDS payable to Income Tax Department and Rs.30,00,000/ towards construction services provided to the building and all these counter claims have not been considered based on the evidence of plaintiff herein before the sole Arbitrator. Thus the said act of Arbitrator is beyond the limits of Arbitrator as provided under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and opposed to public policy U/S.34 (1) and (2) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
20. It is relevant to note that claim of defendant no.1 herein was considered by sole Arbitrator and partly allowed the claim of defendant no.1 and awarded sum of Rs.1,38,00,000/ and after deducting some amount including security deposit Rs.71,87,685/ is ordered to be deducted and finally awarded sum of Rs.66,12,315/ inclusive of service tax payable by plaintiff to the defendant no.1. It is also ordered that the plaintiff herein shall calculate service tax at the applicable rate payable on Rs.1,38,00,000/ and remit the said amount to Income Tax Department and pay balance 20 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc amount to the defendant no.1 herein. The award passed by sole Arbitrator is not opposed to the public policy or exceeded the limits of Arbitrator as argued by plaintiff. For having rejected the counter claim of plaintiff herein even though the plaintiff mentioned several grounds which cannot be considered. Except the grounds as provided U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, this court cannot reappreciate the evidence and documents placed by present plaintiff before sole Arbitrators and the grounds mentioned by plaintiff in the present suit to set aside Arbitration Award passed by the sole Arbitrator are not proved by plaintiff in the present suit.
21. On hearing arguments of both the sides and on going through the Arbitration Award passed by sole Arbitrator it is admitted fact that the arbitral award can be set aside on the ground specified U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act and this court cannot examine the legality of award passed by sole Arbitrator. This court has no jurisdiction to re appreciate the evidence and documents placed before sole Arbitrator by the plaintiff and defendant no.1. If the finding given by sole Arbitrator is opposed to public policy or exceed limits of the Arbitrator while passing such award as prescribed U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, then only this court can interfere with such award passed by sole Arbitrator. On perusal of Arbitral Award there is no such patent irregularity or opposed to the public policy or opposed 21 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc to justice or morality and award passed is unfair or unreasonable as contended by the plaintiff.
22. In view of the above said discussions, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has not at all made out any cogent case that the impugned Arbitral Award is opposed to the public policy and Arbitrator has exceeded his limits in passing such award. Further the plaintiff has not at all made out any cogent grounds to set aside the Arbitral Award and no grounds made out to show that the learned Arbitrator is perverse, unfair and unreasonable in passing such award. The plaintiff has utterly failed to prove and establish that award passed by the sole Arbitrator falls within any of the provisions prescribed U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. On the other hand in arguments of defendant's side and materials placed before this court it clearly discloses that the defendant no.1 is also not entitled for the entire claim putforth before the sole Arbitrator. Thus the present suit is deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I hold point No.1 as negative.
23. POINT No.2 : In view of my discussion on point No.1 above, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff U/S.34 (1) and (2) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 is hereby dismissed.22
CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc In view of the circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer; transcript thereof corrected, initialed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 3rd day of October 2020] [N. Sunil Kumar Singh] LXXXIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
23 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc Order pronounced in open court Vide separate judgment ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff U/S.34 (1) and (2) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 is hereby dismissed.
In view of the circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
LXXXIII Addl. C.C. & S.J, Bengaluru 2 CT 1390_Com.A.S.2522018_Judgment .doc