Karnataka High Court
M/S Vinyas Engineering Pvt Ltd vs M/S Educational Consultants India Ltd on 29 March, 2012
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL
W.P.NO.2259 OF 2012 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
M/S VINYAS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,
NO.2520, 17TH MAIN, 27f1{ CROSS
BANASHANKARI 2N[) STAGE
BANGALORE 560 072.
-
REPRESENTED BY
MANAGiNG DIRECTOR
SRI.SATHISH
PETITIONER
(BY. SRI.Y.K.NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV.)
AND
1. M/S EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD..
EDCIL HOUSE
18 SECTOR, 16-A NOIDA
NOIDA-201 301
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER
2. SRI.P.RAVINDRANATH
ARB ITRATOR
RAXTON 205, ELAN HOMES
-
SARJAPUR ROAD
BANGALORE 560 035.
-
3. M/SAXISBANKLTD.,
NO.9, M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE- 560 001.
BY ITS MANAGER.
RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDiA WITH A PRAYER
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED. 19.11.11 PASSED IN MISC
498/11 BY THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE VII)E ANNX-G ANDPASS OTHER SUITABLE
ORI)ERS TRANSFERRING BOTH THE SUITS OS 8404/08
AND AS 5/09 TO THE SAME COURT HALL FOR BEING
TRIED BY THE SAME PRESIDING OFFICER BY CLUBBING
THE SAME OR PASS OTT IER SUITABLE ORDERS.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
TI-uS DAY THE COURT MADE TFIE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is questioning the order passed by the learned Trial Judge rejecting his application under Section 5 of the Bangalore City Civil Court Act nw Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer O.S.No.8404/2008 pending on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, CCH No.38 Bangalore to (CCH- 11) where A.S.No.5/2009 is pending and vice versa.
2. The petitioner was entrusted by the respondent No. 1 certain construction work of several school buildings.
3. Suffice it to note that the matter was referred to an Arbitrator and an arbitral award has been passed, which is the subject matter of a proceeding. The
-Pt .0 3 respondent No.1 has also ified a suit, which is referred to above seeking declaration and injunction against respondent No.1 therein and respondent No.3 restraining them from encashing the Bank guarantee. Suffice It to note that the learned ThaI Judge was of the view that the proceedings are altogether different inasmuch as the arbitral statute contemplates a summary enquiry whereas the suit entails a full fledged trial. Having perused the impugned order, I am of the view that the same cannot be faulted inasmuch as both the proceedings would operate in different spheres. Having said so, there Is no merit in this petition.
Petition stands disposed of. .
Sd,'
JUDGE
C
SS