Karnataka High Court
Mallamma vs Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd on 18 August, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4719-DB
WA No. 200170 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO.200170 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MALLAMMA,
W/O MALLAPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: 2/13, AT POST MARKUNDA,
TQ: DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B. N. MAHESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
BASALINGAPPA AND:
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH 1. OSMANABAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,
COURT OF OSMANABAD BRANCH,
KARNATAKA
BIDAR - 585 401.
2. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
S/O SIDRAMAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MAILOOR ROAD,
TQ: DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
3. PADMINI,
W/O SHIVANAND KUMAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4719-DB
WA No. 200170 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: H.NO.183-92, SANGMESHWAR COLONY,
BIDAR - 585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R3 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
18.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.201621/2025 (GM-RES) AND THEREBY ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED AWARD AND ORDER
DATED 18.07.2024 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.45/2022 ON
THE FILE OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL COMPRISING OF SOLE
ARBITRATOR AS PER ANNEXURE-B.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the respondents. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4719-DB WA No. 200170 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. The present writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 18.06.2025 in W.P.No.201621/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition as the appellant is having an alternative and efficacious remedy, reserving liberty to pursue the same in the manner known to law.
3. It is not in dispute that the prayer made in the petition to issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned award and order dated 18.07.2024 in Arbitration Case No.45/2022 on the file of Arbitral Tribunal Comprising of Sole Arbitrator as per Annexure-B and remand back the matter to tribunal with liberty to contest the same. Having taken note of the relief sought, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order. When such being the case the present appeal is filed.
4. The counsel for the appellant in support of his argument would contend that he cannot invoke Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by relying -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4719-DB WA No. 200170 of 2025 HC-KAR upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Navigant Technologies Private Ltd.1, and brought to the notice of this Court at paragraph No.29, which reads as follows :
"29. The judgment in Tecco Trichy Engineers [Union of India vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239] was followed in State of Maharashtra vs. ARK Builders (P) Ltd. [State of Maharashtra v. ARK Builders (P) Ltd., (2011) 4 SCC 616 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 413], wherein this Court held that Section 31(1) obliges the members of the Arbitral Tribunal to make the award in writing and sign it. The legal requirement under sub-
section (5) of Section 31 is the delivery of a copy of the award signed by the members of the Arbitral Tribunal/arbitrator, and not any copy of the award. On a harmonious construction of Section 31(5) read with Section 34(3), the period of limitation prescribed for filing objections would commence only from the date when the signed copy of the award is delivered to the party making the application for setting aside the award. If the law prescribed that a copy of the award is to be communicated, delivered, dispatched, forwarded, rendered, or sent to the parties concerned in a particular way, and since the law sets a period of limitation for challenging the award in question by the aggrieved party, 1 [(2021) 7 SCC 657 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4719-DB WA No. 200170 of 2025 HC-KAR then the period of limitation can only commence from the date on which the award was received by the party concerned in the manner prescribed by law. The judgment in Techo Trichy [Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239] has been recently followed in Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel v. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel [Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel v. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel, (2018) 15 SCC 178: (2019) 1 SCC (Civ) 141]."
5. Having read the paragraph No.29, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed with regard to the commencement of limitation to invoke Section 34(3), the period of limitation prescribed for filing objections would commence only from the date when the signed copy of the award is delivered to the party making application for setting aside the award and the same is for calculation for limitation and no bar to invoke Section 34. The appellant instead of approaching the Court as observed by the Single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed.
6. Having taken note of the discussion made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.29 of the -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4719-DB WA No. 200170 of 2025 HC-KAR aforesaid decision for calculation of limitation and no bar to invoke Section 34 hence, the appellant is given liberty to approach the appropriate forum, explaining the delay, if any. Therefore, we do not find any grounds to entertain the writ appeal in view of the observations made by the learned Single Judge that there is an alternative remedy.
Hence, this writ appeal is 'disposed of'.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT:NI