Bangalore District Court
Sindhu Suresh Gowda vs Edelweiss Retain Finance Ltd on 9 September, 2021
1 Com.A.P.No.12/2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL COURT):
BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-89)
Present: Sri. P.J. SOMASHEKARA, B.A.,LL.M,
LXXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 9th day of September 2021
Com.A.P.No.12/2020
Plaintiffs: 1. Sindhu Suresh Gowda,
W/o Suresh Gowda,
Aged about 37 years,
2. Suresh Gowda, S/o Ramaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
Both presently R/at No.2616,
4th Floor, 11th Main, E Block,
2nd Stage, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 10.
(By Sri. A.M./H.M., Advocates)
-vs-
Defendants: 1. Edelweiss Retain Finance Ltd.,
Registered Office at Tower 3,
Wing B, Kohinoor City Mall,
Kohinoor City, Kirol Road,
Kurla (West), Mumbai - 400 070,
Represented by its authorized
Signatory Sri. Mohammed Naved Ali,
2. Sri. Anis Ahmed, Advocate/ Arbitrator,
Gala No.6 & 7, Ground Floor,
Navarantna Co-Operative Housing
2 Com.A.P.No.12/2020
Society Ltd., Opp. Bhoomi Tower-B,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
Maharashtra.
(By Sri. J.M., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a petition under Sec.34 r/w Sec.13(2) and (3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioners and sought for to set aside the award dated 11.12.2019 passed by the defendant No.2, the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.ERFL/1178/2019.
2. Brief facts of the petition are as under:
The petitioners being the respondent No.2 and 3 and the respondent No.1 being the claimant in the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No.ERFL/1178/2019. One Dwarkamai as well as through its Proprietor Smt. Sindhu Suresh Gowda being the petitioner No.1 and they being the co-borrowers. The respondent No.1 being the claimant before the arbitral proceedings has filed the claim petition in which has alleged that they were availed the business loan facility of Rs.45,30,000/- from the respondent No.1 and promise to repay the said amount with interest on monthly installments. Under the said agreement, their liability is coextensive with that of the borrower, therefore, they were jointly 3 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 and severally liable to pay the amounts that they became due and payable to the respondent No.1 under the agreement as they were agreed to repay the loan timely to the respondent No.1 an amount totaling Rs.59,07,073/- in total 37 EMI as given in the schedule to the agreement and also abide by other terms of the agreement. The respondent No.1 being the claimant before the arbitral proceedings has further alleged in the event of their default in terms of conditions of the agreement, shall have the right to recover the entire due and outstanding amount from them under the terms of the agreement for business loan facility and it is also agreed between them that in case of default in payment of monthly installments, the respondent No.1 is entitled to receive the late payment charges @ 24% p.a. and the respondent No.1 in view of the terms of the loan agreement and in case of default or breach of agreement to pay the due amount, the respondent No.1 be entitled to set of the monies, securities, deposits, properties and other assets belonging to them deem to possession of the respondent No.1 under any other account, scheme and agreement and the respondent No.1 can exercise its right to lean and charge on such possession until the ultimate balance owning to the respondent No.1 has been paid or satisfied in full and the agreement contains that if they were failed to pay 4 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 any monies when due or which be declare due prior to the date when it would otherwise have became due or commits any other default under any agreement with the respondent No.1 under which then in such event the respondent No.1 shall without prejudice to any of its specific rights under each of the agreements be absolutely entitle to exercise all or any of its rights under any of the sole discretion of the respondent No.1. After taking the business loan facility, they were continue to enjoying the use of the said loan facility started making defaults in payment of monthly installments and committed default in payment of monthly installment and the respondent No.1 became entitled to recover the entire outstanding dues from them.
3. The petitioners in their petition they further alleged that the respondent No.1 in the claim petition filed before the arbitral proceedings has alleged that the notice got issued by the respondent No.1 regarding the outstanding dues and the arbitration proceedings, but they did not made any payment nor responded to the communications which issued by the respondent No.1 and in the notice which issued by the respondent No.1 have been specifically called upon them to settle the dispute by depositing the outstanding amount and informed 5 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 that in the event of their failure to deposit the outstanding dues the dispute shall be referred to the arbitrator, but they did not settle the dispute and according to the respondent No.1 an amount of Rs.45,89,134/- was outstanding against them towards the loan as on 29.08.2019 which is the part and parcel of the statement of claim and they were outstanding amount of Rs.45,89,134/- and they were liable to pay the said amount as jointly and severally and the cause of action for the suit which arose on 31.03.2018 when they were executed the loan agreement and thereby on each and every time when they did not make the payment according to the terms of the agreement and thereafter on the date when the respondent No.1 communicated the same and when they were committed breach of contract and as per the agreement, the venue of the arbitral proceedings is at Delhi and the appointment of the arbitrator has been as per the terms of the agreement which taken place in between them and the arbitral tribunal having the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute arise in between them. Thereby they were received a communication dated 04.09.2019 from the respondent No.2 who is a practicing advocate at Mumbai courts stating that he has been appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate the alleged dispute in relation to the loan account No.LBANSBL0000043998, 6 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 soon after receipt of the said communication/ notice they addressed a communication dated 11.09.2019 stating that they were not agreeable for the appointment of defendant No.2 as the arbitral to decide the alleged dispute that have been assign in relation to the loan transaction and they were also contending that the communication for payment of the defendant No.2 as arbitrator is without their concurrence and the appointment of the defendant No.2 as the arbitrator is against the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and requested the defendant No.2 to treat the communication as their objection for appointment of the defendant No.2 as arbitrator under Sec.13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and requested the respondent No.2 to desist himself from proceeding further in the matter and the communication was duly served on the respondents. Thereafter the defendant No.2 issued a communication dated 13.09.2019 calling upon them to appear before the respondent No.2 on 27.09.2019 and after receipt of the communication they sent a reply dated 26.09.2019 reiterating the contention taken earlier and requested the defendant No.2 to consider their objection and to drop all further proceedings, but without considering their objections in their replies the defendant No.2 once again issued another communication dated 27.09.2019 7 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 fixing the date of hearing as 11.09.2019 and on receipt of the said communication they replied on 16.10.2019 reiterating the objections which taken earlier and requesting the defendant No.2 to drop all further proceedings as the defendant No.2 has no competent to proceed with the matter.
4. The petitioners in their petition have further alleged the defendant No.2 once again issued another communication dated 16.10.2019 calling upon them to appear before him on 28.11.2019, on receipt of the said communication, once again they have issued a reply dated 24.10.2019 and requesting the defendant No.2 to drop all further proceedings as the same would be without jurisdiction and the communication was duly served on the defendant No.2 and thereafter there was no communication from either of the defendants and there was no communication from the defendants and they were under the bonafide belief that the defendant No.2 has considered their objections which raised under Sec.13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and dropped further proceedings as the defendant No.2 has no competent to adjudicate the dispute, however they were under a rude shock to receive the certified copy of the award dated 11.12.2019 said to have been passed by 8 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 the defendant No.2 directing them as jointly and severally to pay sum of Rs.46,72,751/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 06.12.2019 with cost, but the defendant No.2 without deciding the objections which contemplated under Sec.13(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act proceeded further which is highly illegal and arbitrary. So, feeling aggrieved by the award dated 11.12.2019 were filed the instant petition for the following grounds; a. The impugned award passed by the defendant No.2 is illegal, invalid and perverse as the defendant No.2 though obligated under the provisions of sub section 3 of Sec.13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to decide the challenge as proceeded with the case without deciding the said objection. b. The arbitrator committed grave error has exercised jurisdiction though not vested on him by adjudicating the alleged disputes and passing the award without deciding the objection filed under Sec.13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. c. The award which passed by the arbitrator is in conflict with the public policy contrary to categorical enunciation of law of the Apex Court.
d. The arbitrator committed grave error without considering the objections filed under Sec.13(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
9 Com.A.P.No.12/2020e. The arbitrator has committed grave error without deciding the objection which filed in first in view of Sec.13(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
f. The award which passed by the defendant No.2 is perverse, illegal and capricious which is deserved for set aside and prays for allow the petition.
5. In response to the notice, the respondents have been appeared through their respective counsel and the respondent No.1 filed the statement of objection in which has alleged that the petition which filed is not maintainable in law or on facts in view of Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the petition which filed is not in accordance with law which is deserved for dismissal and the reasons which stated in the petition do not fall under Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which is not maintainable in view of Sec.34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 and the petitioner trying to set up a false, frivolous and vague story to bring the petition within the ambit of Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the petitioners have misrepresented and deposed falsely regarding the non- service of notice issued by the arbitrator and the arbitrator passed the award in accordance with law and the terms and agreement which taken place in between them as the petitioners 10 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 were availed the credit facility and as a security towards the same have executed loan agreement dated 31.03.2018 and they were agreed to resolve their disputes through the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act by nominating the sole arbitrator by the respondent No.1 and they were also agreed that the venue of the arbitration would be at Mumbai, thereby the arbitration was conducted at Mumbai and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition which is deserved for dismissal on this count alone.
6. The respondent No.1 in its objection statement has further alleged that the instant petition is not maintainable which is oppose to Sec.23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute, thereby on this count alone, the instant petition is not maintainable and the arbitral proceedings has been taken place at Mumbai. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and even there is no clause to challenge the award before this court and if at all the petitioner has aggrieved the award ought to have file the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and by virtue of Sec.42 of the Act, this court has no 11 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute and prays for dismiss the petition.
7. Heard the arguments on petitioners side. Though sufficient time has been granted to the respondents counsel to address the arguments, but did not address the arguments, however the liberty has been given to them to file written arguments on or before 03.09.2021, but they did not do so.
8. The points that arise for consideration of this court are as under:
1) Whether the petitioners have made out any of the grounds as enumerated under Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the impugned award dated 11.12.2019 which passed by the defendant No.2 in Arbitration Case No.ERFL/1178/2019?
2) What order?
9. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: As per final order, on the following;
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1: The petitioners being the respondent No.2 and 3 and the respondent No.1 being the claimant in the 12 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 arbitral proceedings, feeling aggrieved by the award which passed by the sole arbitrator, the respondent No.2 and 3 in arbitral proceedings being the petitioners were filed the instant petition on the ground that there was no arbitral clause in the agreement which alleged to have been taken place in between them and though after receipt of the communication from the sole arbitrator they have challenged the appointment of the arbitrator, but it was not decided by the arbitrator before proceeding further and they were also urged the other grounds and filed the instant petition.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner while canvassing his arguments has submitted that the respondent No.1 being the Dwarkamai Solutions represented by the Proprietor availed the loan form the claimant for Rs.45,30,000/- and the petitioners who are the co-borrowers and the respondent No.1 has initiated the arbitral proceedings for the loan amount which alleged to have been borrowed by the petitioners and appointed sole arbitrator and the sole arbitrator has not been appointed with the consent of the petitioners, when they have received the information that they challenged the appointment of the sole arbitrator by sending their objection, but the arbitrator without considering the 13 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 objection which raised has proceed to pass the award which is against to the law and there is no arbitral clause in the agreement which alleged to have been taken place in between the petitioners and the respondent No.1. Therefore, the award which passed is not maintainable which is deserved for set aside and the grounds which urged in the petition are not enumerated under Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and prays for allow the petition and set aside the award which passed by the sole arbitrator and drawn the court attention on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1517 and CMP No.4006/2021 though sufficient time has been granted to the respondents to address their arguments, but they did not do so however liberty has been given to them to file their written arguments on or before 03.09.2021 even then they did not file their written arguments.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners while canvassing his arguments has submitted the claimant being the respondent No.1 has appointed the sole arbitrator on the ground of arbitral clause in the alleged agreement which taken place in between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 but in the alleged 14 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 agreement which alleged to have been taken place in between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 dated 31.03.2018 nowhere reflects that there is a arbitration clause. When there is no arbitration clause in the alleged agreement which taken place, question of appointing either the sole arbitrator or any of the arbitrators to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute does not arise. On this ground alone the award which passed by the sole arbitrator is deserved for set aside. It is an admitted fact in the claim statement which filed by the very respondent No.1 before the arbitral tribunal is clear that the petitioners who are the respondent No.2 and 3 are the co-borrowers were availed loan from the respondent No.1 for business purpose, but they did not repay the said amount as agreed in spite of repeated request and demand and as per the loan agreement dated 31.03.2018. Admittedly, the claimant placed the business loan agreement dated 31.03.2018 which is on record reflects the business loan agreement was taken place in between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 on 31.03.2018. On careful perusal of the business loan agreement in which nowhere appears regarding the arbitral clause nor venue or appointment of sole arbitrator. So in the absence of the ingredients for appointment of sole arbitrator nor arbitration clause, now the question arises what are the 15 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 essential attributes of arbitration agreement. Thus this court drawn its attention on Sec.11(15) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act which reads like this:
15. Essential attributes of arbitration agreement.- The essential attributes of a valid arbitration agreement are as follows:
(1) The arbitration agreement must contemplate that the decision of the tribunal will be binding on the parties to the agreement;
(2) that the jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide the rights of the parties must be derived either form the consent of the parties or from an order of the court or from a statute, the terms of which make it clear that the process is to be an arbitration;
(3) the agreement must contemplate that substantive rights of parties will be determined by the agreed tribunal;
(4) that the tribunal will determine the rights of the parties in an impartial and judicial manner with the tribunal owing an equal obligation of fairness towards both sides; (5) that the agreement of the parties to refer their disputes to the decision of the tribunal must be intended to be enforceable in law and lastly;
(6) the agreement must contemplate that the tribunal will make a decision upon a dispute which is already formulated at the time when a reference is made to the tribunal.
The above essential attributes of valid arbitration agreement are very much clear to appoint an arbitrator, there must be an 16 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 essential attributes which referred above to held the valid arbitration agreement. But in the instant case, the business loan agreement is very much silent regarding the essential attributes of valid arbitration agreement as stated supra.
13. Now the question arises when arbitrator can be appointed. Thus this court drawn its attention of Sec.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which reads like this;
11. Appointment of arbitrators.- (1) A person of any nationality may be an arbitrator, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
(2) Subject to sub-section (6), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators.
(3) Failing any agreement referred to in sub- section (2), in an arbitration with three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall act as the presiding arbitrator.
(3A) The Supreme Court and the High Court shall have the power to designate, arbitral institution, form time to time, which have been graded by the Council under section 43-I, for the purposes of this Act;
Provided that in respect of those High Court jurisdictions, where no graded arbitral institution are available, then, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court may maintain a panel of arbitrators for discharging the functions and duties of arbitral institution and any reference to the arbitrator shall be deemed 17 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 to be an arbitral institution for the purpose of this section and the arbitrator appointed by a part shall be entitled to such fee at the rate as specified I the Fourth Schedule:
Provided further that the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court may, from time to time, review the panel of arbitrators.) The above provision is very much clear that a person from any nationality may be appointed as an arbitrator unless otherwise agreed by the parties and the parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court shall have the power to designate the arbitral institution from time to time and the appointment shall be made on the obligation of the party by the arbitral institution designated by the Supreme Court, in case of international commercial arbitration, or by the High Court in case of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitration, as the case may be. So, by virtue of the provisions which referred above, in order appoint an arbitrator, there must be a essential attributes of arbitration agreement, but the agreement which placed on record nowhere reflects that there is an arbitration clause to appoint the arbitrator. In the absence of arbitration clause appointment of sole arbitrator by the respondent No.1 does not arise. Therefore, the appointment of 18 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 arbitrator is illegal and the award which passed by the sole arbitrator which vitiates without jurisdiction as there is no arbitral clause for appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner while canvassing his arguments has submitted soon after receipt of communication they have sent the objection to the arbitrator by questioning the appointment of the sole arbitrator in view of Sec.13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Now the question arises what is the procedure has to be adopted by the arbitrator when received the objection for appointment as a sole arbitrator from the respondents as the petitioner were replied to the letter dated 04.09.2019 by questioning the appointment of the sole arbitrator.
Thus this court drawn its attention on Sec.13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which reads like this;
13. Challenge procedure.--
(1) Subject to sub-section (4), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenging an arbitrator.
(2) Failing any agreement referred to in sub- section (1), a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall, within fifteen days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or after becoming aware of any circumstances referred to in sub-section (3) of section 12, send a written statement of 19 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal.
(3) Unless the arbitrator challenged under sub- section (2) withdraws from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge. (4) If a challenge under any procedure agreed upon by the parties or under the procedure under sub-section (2) is not successful, the arbitral tribunal shall continue the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award.
(5) Where an arbitral award is made under sub- section (4), the party challenging the arbitrator may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with section
34. (6) Where an arbitral award is set aside on an application made under sub-section (5), the Court may decide as to whether the arbitrator who is challenged is entitled to any fees.
The above provision is very much clear a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall within 15 days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal sent a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal unless the arbitrators challenge under subsection (2) withdraws from his office or the other party agreed to challenge the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge. So the obligation on the arbitrator to decide the challenge which made by the petitioners before proceeding further, but in the instant case, the award nowhere reflects that the arbitrator soon after receipt of the challenge of his appointment has not been decided. Without deciding the 20 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 objection and the challenge for his appointment as a sole arbitrator has proceeds further which is against to Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which amount to perverse, illegal and capricious since Sec.13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act mandates on the arbitrator shall decide first about the objection which raised for his appointment then proceed further to pass the award, but in the instant award the arbitrator has not followed the procedure in view of Sec.13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which state above.
15. It is an admitted fact the certified copy of the order sheet of the Arbitration Case No.ERFL/1178/19 are very much clear that the arbitrator has not decided the objection which raised by the petitioners for his appointment as a sole arbitrator though there is a reference regarding the objection which raised by the petitioners and receipt of the said objection by the sole arbitrator and moreover the sole arbitrator though has referred the objection in the order sheet as well as the award has not taken any steps to decide the said objection before passing the award which is against to under Sec.13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Now the question arises what are the grounds for challenge the appointment of arbitrator and what are the 21 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 bounden duty of the sole arbitrator and compliance after appointment as a sole arbitrator. Thus this court drawn its attention on Sec.12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which reads like this;
12. Grounds for challenge.--
(1) When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose in writing any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality.
(2) An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall, without delay, disclose to the parties in writing any circumstances referred to in sub-section (1) unless they have already been informed of them by him.
(3) An arbitrator may be challenged only if--
(a) circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality, or
(b) he does not possess the qualifications agreed to by the parties.
(4) A party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by him, or in whose appointment he has participated, only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made.
The above provision is very much clear whenever the party raises the objection for the appointment of the arbitrator and an arbitrator from time to time of his appointment throughout the arbitral proceedings shall without delay disclose the parties in writing any circumstances referred to in subsection 1 and Sec.12 22 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the arbitrator disclose the information as per specified in the 6 th schedule, but in the entire order sheet nor the award are reflects about his compliance in view of Sec.12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
23 Com.A.P.No.12/2020
16. So one thing is clear from the materials on record that the sole arbitrator has been appointed at the instance of respondent No.1, though there was no arbitral clause in the business loan agreement which alleged to have been taken place in between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 on 31.03.2018 and the sole arbitrator knowing fully well the petitioners were raised the objection for his appointment without deciding that issue has proceeded to pass the award and the sole arbitrator has not been disclosed the information in the form satisfied in the 6th schedule. Therefore, the grounds which urged by the petitioner are comes within the purview of Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the award which passed by the sole arbitrator is deserved for set aside and the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the court attention on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1517 in between Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another Vs HSCC (India) Ltd. On careful perusal of the said decision, in the said decision their Lordship held that in a case where only one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution, naturally the person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute must not have 24 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 the power to appoint a sole arbitrator that has to be taken as the essence of the amendments brought in by the Arbitration and Conciliation Amended Act, 2015, but in the instant case, there was no arbitration clause for appointment of sole arbitrator by the respondent No.1 and the schedule which attached to the business loan agreement is very much clear the transaction was taken place in Bangalore and in which nowhere reflects this court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue which is on record. So it is clear the petitioner has proved its case that the award is deserved for dismissal and the grounds which urged comes within the purview of Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as the award which passed is deserved for set aside. Hence, I am of the opinion that the point No.1 is answered as Affirmative.
17. POINT NO.2: In view of my answer to point No.1 as stated above, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition under Sec.34 r/w Sec.13(2) and (3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioners is hereby allowed and set aside the award dated 11.12.2019 passed by the defendant No.2 in Arbitration Case No.ERFL/1178/2019.
No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 9th day of September, 2021) 25 Com.A.P.No.12/2020 (P.J. Somashekara) LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Commercial Court), Bengaluru City