Karnataka High Court
C. S. Ravishankar vs Dr. C. K. Ravishankar on 5 June, 2023
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
WP No.1481 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.1481 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. C S RAVISHANKAR,
S/O C K SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHIKKABALLI VILLAGE,
BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 446.
2. S BOJAPPA,
S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA,
SINCE DECEASED
REP BY HIS LRS
2A. SMT.N NAGARATHNA BOJAPPA,
W/O LATE S BOJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by CHETAN B 2B. MS.SNEHA BOJAPPA,
C D/O LATE S BOJAPPA,
Location: AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 2C. MR.SHASHANK BOJAPPA,
S/O LATE S BOJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.6,
BLOCK NO.16, BEML LAYOUT,
SRIRAMPURA 2ND STAGE, MYSORE - 570 023.
CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V.C.O DATED 15.7.2022
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.R.KRISHNAMURTHY., ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No.1481 of 2021
AND:
1. DR. C K RAVISHANKAR,
S/O LATE YAJAMAN KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
2. H N MEENA
W/O DR.C.K.RAVISHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT POST
CHIKKABALLI VILLAGE,BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 446.
3. H N LATHA,
W/O DUSHYANTHA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.16, SAMPREETI,3RD CROSS,
6TH MAIN, BCC LAYOUT, MICO COLONY,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
4. A N THULASIRAM,
S/O A C NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.148, 6TH MAIN,
H.H.R.W. LAYOUT, AREHALLI,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BANASHANKARI IV STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 061.
5. B S PRAVEEN KUMAR,
S/O B SHIVAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.276, 1ST CROSS,
1ST STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGARA,
MYSORE - 570 021.
6. M/S SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.617, 1ST FLOOR, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD,
KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE - 570 023
-3-
WP No.1481 of 2021
REPRESENTED BY DR.C.K RAVISHANKAR,
FORMER MANAGING PATNER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R V S NAIK., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1,R2,R3 & R6;
SRI.A S MAHESHA., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.12.2020 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Respondents having suffered a Preliminary award dated 30.07.2020 have filed Com.AP.No.71/2020 laying a challenge thereto before the Court of LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-83). Petitioner opposed the same inter alia on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, in view of Sec.42 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned Judge of the Court below having heard both the parties has handed the impugned order dated 10.12.2020 holding that his court has got territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seek to falter the same pressing into service the Apex Court decision in BBR (INDIA) -4- WP No.1481 of 2021 PRIVATE LIMITED vs. S.P.SINGLA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, (2023) 1 SCC 693.
2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their advocates oppose the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been founded. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for respondents nos. 1, 2 3 & 6 contends that ordinarily territorial jurisdiction unlike that of subject matter or pecuniary one does not go to root of the matter; if at all petitioner is aggrieved, he can reserve his right to make the impugned order one of the grounds if & when he suffers an adverse outcome in the matter pending before the court below.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the opinion that the question raised in the petition is no longer res integra, the same having been answered by the Apex Court BBR INDIA supra. In all fairness learned Advocates appearing for the other side although at the -5- WP No.1481 of 2021 beginning opposed the petition vociferously, now with grace agree with the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. In view of that much deliberation in the matter is not warranted. Suffice it to say, that the subject case presently at the hands of learned LXXXII Addl. City Civil Judge needs to be tried & disposed off at the hands of his counterpart at Mandya. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the Court at Bengaluru be directed to transfer the case papers to the Court at Mandya.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently opposes the submission made on behalf of the respondents for the transfer of file from Bengaluru Court to Mandya Court contending that it is for the respondents to withdraw the case at Bengaluru and re-present it at Mandya Court. He reasons out the opposition that certain rights would accrue to the parties as to limitation or otherwise and they may not be cut short by the Court ordering the transfer. I am not impressed by this submission. We are in a new era with the slogan of -6- WP No.1481 of 2021 'Justice at the doors of litigants'. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by the direction for transfer of the file from one court to another, all contentions of the parties having been kept intact.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the court below. The learned LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-83) is requested to transmit the case papers to the court of his counter part at Mandya forthwith. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Both the sides through their advocates are put to notice to appear before the transferee court on 23.06.2023 and seek orders at the hands of learned Judge.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cbc/