Karnataka High Court
P Ravindra Pai S/O Dayananda Pai vs M/S I B C Knowledge Park on 25 March, 2008
IN THE HIGH counr or KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS 'rm: 25th DAY or kk
23.331321:
"i'nn.""' HG1'€'BLE h'R.u"J3TIuu""'~{'€1GGFflLA V£.":§3'w"E:'fim
rm: I-ION'BLE nm.Jua'r1cE
1 P KA\:fJ.NDR.~A;v13:'%1"'LiAYANANDA PA! -
AGED ABOUT' 30 YEA1'{S;«.
1e.,I_A:r .I-.s1«.!1..1...A..I~a\.r 3.;-.A...:>,
BYATAIKAYIWAPURA; BANGALORE 92.
% - A:-mawiu PM s_/O VP"SvA'1'1SH PA1
% AGEI3»A'i30U'I'._27 YEARS,
MA.l\.',
RAJA MAIm;1LAs EXTENSION,
560 030
SMT MOHLNI 1.) PM we P DAYANANDA PA1
AGED ABOUT 5? YEAR
1<k;.A.* ' No.25, MADHUVAN, BELLARY ROAD,
I3TA'T'ARAYANAPUR'A, BANGALORE 92.
kk SM'l'SAB1'l'HA PM w /o 14 szmsu PAI
AGED AIBOUT 51 Y 1.4" 'AR
R/AT N0.9, 'A81-iWlNl' 8'l'H MAIN,
"""'§r"'--\-"'\.p-Pr
'-I
Rnu" 'A 1'v'iAHA'v'iL:"1S EX'i"E1'\I'SiON,
BANGALORE 560 080
sn/1'1' E EAvm-LA PA; wgo v1vE1~; PA}
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
i<';'A'i'N0.9,8'i"' MMN, 'E
, .
RAJA MAI 1Av1LAs ExTENsIoN.EAE;§ALoEEAEEEEE'» "
A/Egg VLDYA PA! 1.1/0 9
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, ' L
ivij:"x'i'1'v'(J.2'5, MADHVUVTAN,'.B'ELLAR¥._R0AD;'
l3YATARAYANAPURA;.-.IfAN%GA;L()R'E
ALL ARE REPRESEN'l'EL) BYv'I'HE.lR" A f
PA HOLDER A%;.H.'¥lJN"£)i%.lL{£ {}'i}:'i%ELLAN'i" N02)
Ivi/'S H€)«U§<J[1§I(3;.A4§_);:§\fi§§L(5PMEN'1'
AND INK/ES'1'MENT§3,PARTNERS*.HIP FIE-EM,
No.35; 1, KEN GAL HAN'U1\riA1§l'1'1riAlAH ROAD,
"
1<EP1<Es1a:1'N E1)~J;32YE 1'1E}=AE'1*NE1<,
P.ASiIWII'€. PA: _ _
. .. 1-'E'l'l'l'l0NERS
:. (B}" .Sri'-i14)$Z'L;.N..l{AO, SR;ADvocAc1'E, FOR SR1 H SRINIVAS
M/As 11:31:. KNOWLEDGE PARK
A IIAVING rrs REGISTERED OFFICE AT "31 IAI'--2I.!.-F
-.Ch3N?1'ER", No.73/1, 5TH FLOOR, S'1'.MAl<KS
TIAKTIXA
RCA un1VunLGRE 1,
A .REl-'RESE'l'NE.D BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.YUNUS Z1.
c7..$.-.""--'\.---
2 MR YUNUS ZTA
DIRECPOR,
M] S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK,
'S1'-{Al-\'1l';}i1'E=' CEN'i'ER',
No.73/1, 5TIIFLOORST.MARKS'RQA1§, V': A
BANGALORE 1.
3 SR1 P DAYANANDA PAI _ V. A
sic 1
12 /AT No.25, MADI 1UvAN,BELLAEY ROAD, :
BYATARAYANAPURA,.|;3ANGALORE"92.
4 SR1 SATISH PA1 .
sjo LA'i'i~:) i-'.f€:fii€ASi1iv'ii1i:*1"P:'ii'«=__ 1_ «V '-
R/AT NO.9;~%'SIZ'EWINI' 3311 MAIN,
RAJAJMAHAVELAS~L-}X'l'£1§N$1QN, E
BA..NQA.Li3R¥.?'-"
"1-'()I'\I"L)'h3I'~i'i"i".-'5
(By Sri C.E§;VI&11)YAN1§Lf1'HAlSi«§§i<.ADVOCA'l'E, 1«*o1< M /S.
.. B
RAMA. 1
1+'-11 ARB1'1'RA'l'iUN' 81. CONCILKIXTION
1%%A c*1' 1AaA111sT1 TIIE ORDER DATED 5_/9; 2007 PASSED IN
DISMJSSING Ls'; 1510.2 1111.151) u/0.39 R1 & 2 R/W.S. 151 C91:
' 3EE1<1EG .--OI~'<DE'R OF' AD INTERIM INJUN "
% 4C€)_NSEQUE!§l'l'LY DISMISSING THE PE'l'1'1'i0N.
A--.A. 1No,25ouo/EU;-'E_oN THE 1111.11: 01' THE xxv111 AL)DL.Cl'l'Y
c11.»*1L.- MAYOIIALL, BANGALORE (0011.29),
'TION :35
'1'H_lS APPEAL COMll'.*(.} ON 1*-'OR HEA.'s'.lN{.} THIS DAY,
NAGARAJ, J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
E
5.9.2007 passed by 'e'"T1ed XX'v'lli nudi.<;ity"t:i~.-ilgluegs,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore,
Application No.2500b/ 2:097 "filed by the
appellants under Qrder 'read with Section
151 cm se the respondents
restraining éficurnbering, irrsing er
0 1' 0 d
Pam-ng _ of' the property mentions
schedule 'ti1ereir1'."V tfiis case was listed on 10.3.2008
for agljgiilissionhl by. feonsentttor the learned counsel for both the
'Ii.-nu
._ ""'lf'he_ brief facts of the case 1" 'C:t':SSE't1"'"_y' for umposal of
V . this as under:
"(a.}.. filppeflaxlt No.7, namely M /s. Bangalore Housing
Development and Investments, a partnership firm, of
Wu..." u.J.u appellant Nos. 1 t- to have partners,
entered' into a Joint 'L)eve'"prr1'nt Agr'*em'*nt
c-""'\-"
{0"'_
{hereinafter referred to as "dDA") dated
with the first respondent company
1.13.0. Knowledge Park (of fvvhielit it
bgr-In fI"1P
\1i.I..l. ln&J.\.r
I ' V' '7.
110-51' ...as D1re..wr,__
agreed that the first respondent 'ivouid V
construct mulfistoified conipleii as per
the plan approved deliver to
the 7th app:é;ll}ant:i,-- , iorwils 4 lakh square
1 at U1 tun uu.ui'. uy witii """ ""'
of car' " spaces, common area, terrace,
garden,pp etch " 7'11 appellant --- firm shall
épeailver diivzod .°ofi"the undivided share in the said
in property in favour of the first respondent --
(VA\_,.'.V'..L....>V..a...A'; i... .. ....
L4UJL1'})§11Ayv.U1 Lu
the saidiagreement has been described at schedule-
. , 'A'th.ereunder.
'Respondents-3 and 4, representing 7th appellant
fir;n, sold two hits oi' undivided portion of the land
in question, under r
p ..
'-__ 'H.Zl.U._ll1!3Ll~'H.l'U
t1iiVe.«--""appeaI'ed and Ncontesting the same.
Arbitration
of two companies though the said dL)§"f not
provide for such sale of vacant land
constructing any building thereon and the i
n i 4%; mid
..<+«-*
app llants flied 0.S.N0.%. 1531
E5 .
Fzfi
.. c:
1 =
.-I; '
2006 seeking reliefs of"vd:eciaration 'that cieedsii
dated 23.9.2UU5':exec1itefii'Viin of Vtheiespective
purchasers defengiania '(.-:.'.f property in
(),S.Nos_s'; 4_1"{fi-;j¢3:'-.1.1.,I;i«_)€)',=ip i64?6j0aai-c not binding on
r--f"';"'
O
ala
' I'-r\-I"V|"éIV:'l\'I"l*'Q I-nu-|'u::§1'-I' cl-'D0
1.-._ i {ayygauuuua uu.1u.u.;}
reliefs of' injunction, non-
alienation,_et+i~;;« i
; 'iiinoeiiiitheife been an arbitration clause in JDA
____pma_c,t_1_ed the Arbitral Tribunal
c--r:'?'"'
The
he reapondents filed 1.A.Nos.1 and 2 before the
Tribunal in the said arbitration
:5
L;
5
1%
Sa
la
19-
preceedings and r_nbta..in.er_i _.
3.4.2007 resiraining e
5'
(<1)
alienating or encumbering it in any
part of the schedule property.
During the pendency of
before
Q lg:-I
1J.l
I-Ihgdn
I-IJKJI-I
before the leariied )£X'V'iiIj4ii§;d.;i1.city"i'Ciiri1 Judge
seeking the injunction
restrainiiiggpillie i are respondents
in". - .
tierin) ali_;;§;t'_dig ioruinany way e.
QIIITI .
,_.r'-w--
and B annexed thereto.
in .'J_'lie)f" it in the said application, an
it iiiterioeutoijii "" "application (LA. 2) under Order 39
'i~ .._i1d. 2
.3_d with 313. .ti
45%
y W y of injunction
P
-'fie same re-ii'f'
zw.l:i"'1ch were sought for in the main application. The
learned Addl.City Civil Judge , by his impugned
order, dismissed l.A.2 and also the main petition in
the Arbitration * apptéiiaintsww
afifiusgnuuzl -~ 1'}xJ'1._NG;V
A.A.No.25006/U7. The legality and
the same is challeged in this aoeal-.. ..
"'7 "J7 fi*"'.'
""_1°nt_'f A of =.i}'.'i._a.~"Vi.i!§E.C,I,
cc
E
2
d
1
5
|"I¢r\1'1l" flag I\
LI.
learned Senior Counsel appearing for'the~ appeflsntsi' ~'
C.S.Vaidyanathan, the leaI'I1edi'i'i'[$er1ior for the
respondents and on the orderwand all the
docuinens s1___i.._.e_d wy ,..'t._h-2. sides'w;--';a1"; of he ..pLnLo:n.
discussing at pare. Visliosifi theiiimpugtled order as to
the various trenssictioinss "between the parties in the light of
the terms JDA entered into between
LI-
the property in question by
con'str'1icting:iV"_coIn{uiercial complex thereon, has recorded his
ifindingis' No. 10 that the petitioners (appellants herein)
*"""" sud"
not Kprima facie case regarding the -relief sought for
V', us; -LI-.lstl'IJLJ. I: A I-I--I In-I».I\J .I.-III-A-uI.lJ. 1.II..dI.aI.lwI.\.ILJ. l.AuIJ.\..I (al.lLI\J LII. lull
i 'A u 4 5 I I
mOn111§t hg 77 nnndnptg 'if! has rncnn run 1 nn and clan 11'': Ad)'
' ifiieidflunder Urder Rules 1 and 2 and these findings
are supported by valid reasons. Therefore the impugned
: . .
order dismissing l.A.2 and also the main petition lean
for interference in this appeal.
4. Further, we do not see any 'eVrror._cem:eitteti._ t_';-..
impugned order that since the "';A§:*i:itI'atid:1V_ preceedihgs are
pending before the 'vhettveen the
appellants and same issues as
in l.A.No.2, the eeeepeueeteeeeuidtilteeeleeeime very -_.1:_.r -1'
inteum Vtfreeeeding- 'Dt':f'f'C'. the
Arbitratjoxzl this count also l.A.No.2
deserves
5. 5 However we leeeee Addl.City Civil Judge while
".I.'1"
at'~theVVh'eonclusion that the nnne.....l n.t-.. £11.. net meme
.......|J._ _
outs'-"rims--.--.'"*eiV* War-ruuun "ra'r'1t of the relief interim
hos
lttlvlvlinjunefion es' prayed for in l.A.'2, as recorded at para 10 of the
r-/'"'
U Carder his definite findirl-1'gs that; I) the appellants
(pet1t.ie11ers therein) have right only to get 31% of built up
T tow_rs A. 13:. B and not .11. cube. Lwezs t.-.7hic.. am
'f th" res""dents' share of 69% and they
.
h J» '-9- Ch 53 ' entitled only to the relief of money recovery as and no other relief regarding any property property; it) Since the 'B' schedule the >7 sharp; ('FF rnennndnnt NQ_}'g-'He - '6 Q E 'i .I.'D i! C F ll' 0- E' whatsoever over the same and to restrain the mspondents'::'from_A" saineas owners thereof under law. frne Judge has also observed in the ...in:ipuyed order that to the extent of two lakh feet of the schedule property as pleaded; _ tor lithe; it claim petition and other issues " ' ' "1! T recov .rv _I1d, payment of the .___nm.ount tween A 'u'-";e"~« fpafies s I-
,_l' r :-
I I |...L ul:
2 VVVVJDA therefore the dispute in the said application before
--'-a.---''' it hitn regarding delivery of balance two iakh square feet of is directly in issue in the said arbitration a--
.-
6. W Le _ _._errL..g .0 t..e above L11 ieerned Civii Judge recorded er H impugned order Sri D.L.N.Rao, appearing for the appellants, ~ L' vpribunal, wherein the ar;bi1:r'ation:VV'jAproeeeding.e:.l,bet§vee.- t...e partre a... pending, '.-"ii by these r-.ein~-e and ohsewetions Civil Judge and, in that er: kepfieuante before the Arbit1'ationvVV'i'I:fiVbAi'L.'<i_e1 and therefore, even if this order does n_t e.,..|.l .01' an its j"dgin"1t ""1 11 appeai tits shall not be influenced by the observations of the learned Addl.City Civil
17. While" dealing with an interlocutory a_pp1ier_a....,n it." the
4. O f tinder Lrder 39 of (3.1-'.{.). seeking' an order of " -~ti1_1j't'1nei:ion, the court, with a View to find out whether the petitioner therein have made out a prima facie case in their ifavour deserving the exercise of discretion in granting the e---C"""""-'-,---"V
-nee said relief, has to record its definite findings, on of the material produced on record by both paI'tie's; V' merits of the case. Similarly, the appeilate' or4.revisi;nnl:
II while dewmnling .....t.. an anneal or revision *=.':1"ir"fifer an'o'rder of the 'i"na1' ' on such an h1terlo9.uto1ji'~.application either granting or refusing to ..1f%¢=_-,1ief Hsougtit for in such application, also haveH_to7 findings as to the existence or;"ahsence3--. oi" pi1g;;a_V;a;.i.,..V:c_...., .. -a.our o. respective material on record. But it is the settled court, while disposing of the main suit or proeeediiigsion merits, on the basis of evidence 'led by the Zresgiective parties, shall not be i.....uenced ..y the i'intiir"s_ it whit' di'posing of such interiocutory ivviapplication,._norA5'shall it be influenced by the findings of the it :v'ap;iei,la.te or srevisional court recorded while disposing the revision filed against an order of trial court on such apphcation eith 1' gran_.ng or ....1sing to grant the inter":
r4ii'f sought for ther in. Sirniiariy, any other court, Tribunal r'_S-'U--"r"-
issue which was involved in such . before a court in any proceedings, the findings recorded by the co1irt.o.vvhile- L' interlocutory applications 'nor ., by the «l'>'-'mud ' -91131-gtt-wit-I
-I-11.1-I'e| an-I I-my A-In J. lulllsfi 1U\.p IUUU U ._ i .....n * .;=_..~ 'l...I.1 ycsu ;. , 1 1._ p > i 1'3u1'L'h'1i:'t'fl appeal or revision filed court passed on such mterlocilitotii.application-." C
8. 'l'herefore':,"'~sin i-above settled principle, the _._r t__e _nneLlents J71."
submission of the codosoi
4.L...4. LL... A ...x' L LU. Lu n1'b"'-1.1' LL 1-_ i';*ibiji'ai " ' H L' "" '''' "' ""3 wmluu uc: uiucnued, order...in the Arbitration proceedings pending it the appellants and respondents herein, by so tho recorded by the learned Additional =City he. 1-iorht. Qf the _ _ f i.A."o. " "' the order of jdisnigissal of l.A.No.ll and Main Petition is not set aside, can V l V l A .. be accepted.
<-T"'--\/0 u n i :7. 111 'few of 0 impugned order does not call fc11a.1_1y 'V . appeal and as such this appeal des:§¢:;vt§s&..io being devoid of merits. Accordii1_g£yV, this L' in the circumstances of the case_tti:erc is nohcrdcjf to costs.
826/ - Judge