Karnataka High Court
Vision India Software Exports Ltd vs Mphasis Ltd on 7 March, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, S R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
COMAP No.109 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
VISION INDIA SOFTWARE EXPORTS LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PLOT NO.14, SHUBHANKAR BUNGALOW
DHANASHREE COLONY
NEAR CUMMINS ENGINEERINGS COLLEGE
KARVE ROAD, PUNE-411 052
REP BY JATIN VASANT KULKARNI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAWLEY MUDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MPHASIS LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
BAGAMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
MARATHALLI OUTER RING ROAD
DODDANAKUNDI VILLAGE
MAHADEVAPURA
BANGALORE - 560 048
REP BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT LEGAL
MR HEMANTH ANANTH RAM
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT H.PAVITHRA, ADVOCATE)
---
-2-
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1) (C) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 R/W SECTION 13
(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/04/2021
PASSED IN COM.A.S.NO.111/2018, PASSED BY THE COURT OF
LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-88) AND
ETC.
THIS COMAP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.04.2021 passed in COM.A.S.111/2018 by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil Judge (Commercial court), Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the appellant - plaintiff against the respondent - defendant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Act of 1996') was dismissed by the Commercial court, thereby, confirming the impugned award dated 16.10.2017 passed in AC No.69/2017 by the Arbitral Tribunal (sole arbitrator) before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru (Domestic and International).
-3-
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that the respondent - claimant filed a claim petition before the Arbitral Tribunal for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,15,754.28/- together with interest and other reliefs against the appellant. The said Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2017 after hearing both the respondent and the appellant in CMP No.144/2016.
4. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, the respondent - claimant appeared and filed its statement of claim. However, though notice was served on the appellant, it did not chose to appear nor file its statement of objections, despite sufficient opportunity having been given to the appellant as can be seen from the findings and observations recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
5. On behalf of the respondent, one witness PW-1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. As stated supra, the appellant herein neither appeared before the Tribunal nor filed its statement of objections. So also, the -4- appellant did not either cross-examine the aforesaid PW-1 nor adduced any oral and documentary evidence on its behalf. Further, though the respondent addressed arguments before the Tribunal, the appellant did not do so, as can be seen from the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
6. After hearing the respondent, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award partly allowing the claim of the respondent, thereby directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.19,95,630.68/- together with cost and interest at 10% p.a. from 03.05.2013 up to the date of payment in favour of the respondent.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the appellant herein filed the aforesaid suit against the respondent herein under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996. It was contended that the documents produced by the respondent before the Tribunal, in particular the Invoices at Exs.P3 to P13 were concocted and fraudulent documents, which could not have been made the basis by the Tribunal to uphold the claim of the respondent. It was also contended that the award passed by the -5- Tribunal was contrary to law and the material on record which had not been correctly and properly appreciated by the Tribunal. It was further contended that the appellant has a good case to urge on merits and as such, it was necessary that an opportunity is granted in favour of the appellant to put forth its defence by setting aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
8. The respondent herein contested the said suit / petition filed by the appellant before the Commercial court by filing its statement of objections and interalia contended that apart from the fact that the impugned award of the Tribunal was just and proper, having regard to the limited scope of interference by the Commercial court under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996, there was no merit in the suit / petition and that the same was liable to be dismissed.
9. After hearing the parties, the Commercial court referred to the rival contentions and has recorded a finding of fact that the appellant was not diligent in defending the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Commercial court, taking note of the limited scope of interference under -6- Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 and referring to the various decisions in this regard came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant had not made out a case within the parameters of Section 34, viz., patent illegality or in contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law or in conflict with the public policy of India or basic notions of morality or justice. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Commercial court has correctly and properly appreciated the entire material on record and arrived at a just, fair, proper and reasonable conclusion that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal did not warrant interference by the Court under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996.
10. On careful perusal of the material on record and after giving our anxious consideration to the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the Commercial court are correct and proper and the same do not contain any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be perverse or capricious warranting interference by this Court -7- in the present appeal under Section 37 of the said Act of 1996.
11. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
CHIEF JUSTICE SD/-
JUDGE Srl.