Bangalore District Court
Sri.M.Sunil Kumar Shetty vs Sri.S.V.Ramaswamy on 2 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY [CCH. No.11]
nd
Dated: This the 2 day of July, 2018.
Present: Sri.PARAMESHWARA PRASANNA.B., B.A., L.L.B.,
LXII Add. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH No.63)
and Concurrent Charge of
VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH No.11),
Bengaluru City.
A.S.No. 70/2012
Petitioner: Sri.M.Sunil Kumar Shetty,
s/o.late M.M.Shetty,
aged about 52 years, residing at
No.C-303, Landdown Apartment,
7th Cross, Domlur Layout,
Bengaluru-560071.
(By Sri.M.V.Vedachala, Advocate).
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Sri.S.V.Ramaswamy,
s/o.S.V.Vijay Raghavan,
aged about 63 years,
residing at No.358, 13th Cross,
5th Main, RMV II Stage,
Dollars Colony, Bengaluru-560094
2. Hon'ble Justice M.P.Chinnappa
(Retd.),
Arbitrator, No.1419, Kaveri,
8th Main, Judicial Layout,
GKVK Post, Bengaluru-65.
R1-by Sri.Jagadeesh.M.L. Advocate,
R2- Exparte.
2 A.S.No. 70/2012
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed by the Plaintiff under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the impugned Award dated 25-6-2012 passed by defendant No.2, i.e., Learned Sole Arbitrator, Justice M.P.Chinnappa (Retd.), wherein the 2nd defendant dismissed the Claim Petition filed by the plaintiff.
2. The material on record shows that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka appointed 2nd defendant-Hon'ble Justice M.P.Chinnappa, Former Judge, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, as Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the plaintiff and 1st defendant, by Order dated:24-11-2009 passed in C.M.P. No. 219/2009. The notices were issued to the plaintiff and 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant and in response to the notice, plaintiff and 1st defendant appeared through their counsels and filed their pleadings.
3. The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the Claim Petition filed by the plaintiff before the 2nd defendant is that:
a) The plaintiff and the respondent were involved in real estate business of procuring the land and developing the same on partner ship basis. After 3 A.S.No. 70/2012 realizing the profit, they used to share the same as per their understanding. The plaintiff was responsible for the day to day affairs, including identifying the properties, verifying the titles, negotiating, documentations, co-ordinating with the advocate and concerned authorities for obtaining sanctions and clearances, etc.
b) One Chikkapapaiah and his family members were the owners of A-schedule property bearing survey No.6/1, measuring 4 acres 2 guntas. The said property was taken over by the B.D.A./State Government of Karnataka, for the formation of Truck Terminal known as "D.Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal", without recourse to law. This taking over of forcible possession of the property in question was questioned by the owners in W.P.No.29065-66/1992 and the Single Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to allow the said Writ Petition by its Order dated 16-4-1999, by holding that the acquisition of the property was illegal and the owners were entitled for possession. The said Order was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, vide Order dated 9-10-2000. During the pendency of the Writ Petition referred above, some differences arose between the 1st defendant and the owners of the A-schedule property.
Said dispute was referred to one Sri.C.Krishnegowda, a 4 A.S.No. 70/2012 K.A.S.Officer, to resolve the differences as Arbitrator, as per the MOU dated 16-8-1995. Said Learned Arbitrator passed the Award as follows dated:1-5-1999 by granting following reliefs:
" a. That the compensation that may be awarded by the Government of Karnataka/ Bangalore Development Authority/appropriate forum, shall be determined in accordance with the market value of the schedule property that may be considered by the appropriate authority responsible for paying the compensation.
b. That the vendors under the said memorandum of understanding shall be entitled only to the extent of an amount equal to the sale consideration agreed to by them at Rs.110/- sq. ft. of land and the purchaser shall pay the same to the vendors deducting the amount already paid.
c. That the compensation receivable in respect of the Schedule Property shall be claimed in the name of Shri.B.R.Ravindranath and Shri.Venkatapathy and out of the total compensation receivable, he shall be wholly responsible in paying to Shri.S.V.Ramaswamy (the purchaser) all that amount left over after satisfying the vendors entitlement as aforesaid.
d. That the amount left paying the vendors of their entitlement shall be wholly paid to the purchaser Shri.S.V.Ramaswamy respective of the amount of compensation receivable and the vendor shall have no claim over the same.5 A.S.No. 70/2012
e. That each of the parties shall be responsible for any statutory liability viz., income tax payable on their share of income/proceeds as shared between them as aforesaid.
f. The parties have agreed to refer the matter for arbitration proceedings in respect of further disputes if any in respect of the memorandum of understanding and the successive arbitration shall be binding on them."
c) After having realized the difficulties in securing the alternate land, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant took over the responsibility and in that connection, they entered into an agreement with owners to take effective steps to resolve the problem. At this juncture, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an understanding and the same was also referred to in the arbitration award dated1-5-1999. Thereafter, their oral understanding was reduced into writing by way of Memorandum of Agreement dated 23-12-2001. Said terms were also reiterated in another agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and one Smt.Puttathayamma, on the same date.
d) The plaintiff claims that, after the responsibility was assigned to him in the Agreement referred above, the plaintiff invested huge money, time and efforts to put things in order and to get a suitable alternative land allotted. As a result of his efforts and investment of money, the B.D.A./State Government of 6 A.S.No. 70/2012 Karnataka allotted Survey No.81/2E, situated at Kothanur Village, described as B-schedule property, as per the Order dated 21-9-2005. That, by virtue of M.O.U. dated 16-8-1995 and by subsequent event, the owners of the A-schedule property were entitled only for Rs.110/- per square feet and the 1st defendant, along with the plaintiff, were entitled for additional compensation or in the alternative, if the land is given to the said owners in lieu of taking over of Schedule-A property by the Authorities, the parties were entitled for the same, which was confirmed by the Arbitral Award dated 1-5-1999.
e) The plaintiff further contends that, in view of M.O.U. dated 23-12-2001 entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, he derived a specific right in the A-schedule property, along with the amount for the efforts put in for getting Schedule B-property, allotted, as he performed his part of contract. He further claims that, he reliably learnt that the 1st defendant, in collusion with the owners of A-schedule property, was making hectic efforts to sell the B-schedule property, with an intention to deprive the legitimate right of the claimant under M.O.U. dated 23-12-2001. Hence, he issued a legal notice dated 4-7-2007 for appointment of arbitrator, as per Document No.8. In order to protect his interest in the 7 A.S.No. 70/2012 B-schedule property, he made an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in A.A.No.120/2007 and the same was compromised and agreed that, one C.Krishnegowda shall act as sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the claimant and respondent, as per M.O.U. dated 23-12-2001 and the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.90-lakhs. Accordingly, A.A.No.120/2007 was disposed off by an Order dated 15-12-2007 by recording Memo filed by the parties. After the disposal of A.A.No.120/2007, the 1st defendant, along with the owners of A-schedule property, sold B-schedule property for a consideration of Rs.23.50 crores at Rs.110/- per square. The balance amount was appropriated by the 1st defendant. As Mr.C.Krishnegowda did not enter upon the reference and adjudicate the dispute, the plaintiff filed application under Section 11 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Court was pleased to appoint Justice M.P.Chinnappa (Retd.)i.e., defendant No.2 as Sole Arbitrator, as per the Order dated 24-12-2009 passed in C.M.P.No.219/2009 and the plaintiff thereafter filed claim statement before 2nd defendant by claiming a sum of Rs.13,27,86,666/- from defendant in specific performance of Memorandum of Agreement dated 23-12-2001, along with 18% interest per annum.
8 A.S.No. 70/20124. The 1st defendant in his Written Statement filed before the 2nd defendant, denied the allegations made in para 3 of the Claim Statement as false and untenable. The 1st defendant contends that, he and the plaintiff were never involved in any real estate business. He also denies the execution of M.O.U. dated 16-8-1995. He further contends that, so-called Agreement was frustrated, because of limitation and the 1st defendant had entered into fresh agreement with owners on 29-2-1996, along with others and the claim of the 1st defendant was restricted to 1/4th share in the schedule property. The defendant, by denying allegation made in para No.7 of the claim statement, denies the award alleged to have been passed by Sri.Krishnegowda in respect of agreement dated 16-8-1995. It is further urged that the said award, which is passed without conducting any enquiry, is not binding on the 1st defendant. The award is false and concocted, which was obtained by the plaintiff in collusion with the Arbitrator and the same is clear from the alleged agreement of Smt.Puttathayamma, who is none other than the mother of Krishnegowda. The findings of the Arbitrator are not binding on the Arbitral Tribunal. In so far as Writ Petition referred to in para No.8 of the claim petition is concerned, it is stated that, it has nothing to do with the plaintiff, as he was not a 9 A.S.No. 70/2012 party, nor as he claimed to be the beneficiary. The allegation made in para No.9 of claim petition that the plaintiff had taken over responsibility of identifying the alternate land and getting same allotted, are denied as baseless and untenable. It is contended that the plaintiff, at no point of time, had entered into any agreement with the owners. The allegations contained in para Nos.10 and 11 of claim statement are denied as false. The 1st defendant further denies the execution of M.O.U. dated 23-12-2001 alleged to have entered between the plaintiff and he 1st defendant. It is contended that the alleged M.O.U. neither give any right to plaintiff, nor is there any property as B- schedule property in the alleged M.O.U. Even in the alleged Award itself, the Arbitrator had full knowledge of the Agreement dated 29-2-1996 and hence he relied only on that Agreement. The allegations made in para No.13 of the claim statement are denied as false and the Agreement dated 23-12-2001 is void ab initio. The 1st defendant further denied that because of the efforts of plaintiff, he performed his part of contract. The 1st defendant also denied the receipt of notice dated 4-7-2007. Regarding instituting of A.A.No.120/2007, the 1st defendant contends that the same was initiated to coerce the 1st defendant and the deposit was made subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. It is 10 A.S.No. 70/2012 urged that the owners of the property cancelled the power of attorney given to B.R.Ravindranath and R.Venkatapathy through a legal notice dated 22-3-2007. It is contended that the sale deed dated 19-12-20007 was not executed by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is only the confirming party and every rupee received by the parties is mentioned in the sale deed.
The 1st defendant further denies that the owners were given with only Rs.110/- per square feet and the 1st defendant received the balance amount. It is urged that the payment of consideration was as per the recital in the sale deed. The plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of contract, as the agreement dated 23-12-2001 is void ab initio and unenforceable, as it runs contrary to Sections 23, 30 and 35 of the Contract Act and the same is opposed to public policy. It is further urged that the plaintiff was not instrumental in getting alternate property. It is the case of the 1st defendant that, he was only to pay the balance amount of Rs.30-lakhs within the stipulated period. As the owners were not prepared to honor their agreement, a fresh agreement came to be entered into on 29-2-1996. Hence the agreement dated 16-8-1995 become infructuous and void. The M.O.U. dated 23-12-2001 is neither a legal document, nor it can be 11 A.S.No. 70/2012 enforced by a legal authority. The calculation furnished in para Nos.13(c) and 9d) are false and baseless. The claim is unconceivable and is opposed to law. The plaintiff is not entitled for any amount and the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction and there is no cause of action. Inter-alia, with these contentions, the 1st defendant sought for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the 2nd defendant framed the Issues and recorded the evidence. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as C.W.1 and one Mr.Viswanath as C.W.2 and got marked Exs.C1 to C33 and the defendant herein is examined as R.W.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 to R16.
6. Both parties filed Written Arguments. Heard oral arguments of counsel for defendant No.1. Counsel for plaintiff has not addressed any oral arguments. Perused the entire record and written arguments submitted on both side.
7. Under the facts and circumstances, the following Points arise for consideration of this Court:
1. Whether the plaintiff has made out any of the grounds under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside the impugned Arbitration Award?
2. What Order?12 A.S.No. 70/2012
8. My finding on the above Points are as under:
Point No.1 - In the Negative, Point No.2 - as per Final Order below, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to set aside the impugned Award dated:25-6-2012 passed by the 2nd defendant-Hon'ble Justice M.P.Chinnappa, wherein the 2nd defendant has dismissed the claim petition filed by the plaintiff and directed C.W.2 to return the F.D. Receipt of the 1st defendant and declared that the defendant is entitled to draw the said amount of Rs.90-lakhs with interest accrued thereon from the bank.
10. Being aggrieved by the said Arbitral Award passed by the 2nd defendant, the appellant has filed this suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the following grounds:
a. The Hon'ble Arbitrator has not considered the fact that the petitioner is entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 23.12.2001, entered into between himself and the respondent;13 A.S.No. 70/2012
b. The Hon'ble Arbitrator has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is entitled to his share of the balance of consideration from sale of Schedule B property;
c. The Hon'ble Arbitrator has failed to appreciate the terms of the agreement and has erred in holding that the said agreement is unenforceable;
d. The Hon'ble Arbitrator has failed to appreciate that the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka only declared entitlement to an alternative land and the land owners could not get an alternative land without the efforts of the petitioner;
e. The Hon'ble Arbitrator has failed to appreciate that in order to render an agreement as void or unenforceable, there should be evidence to support any allegation of coercion, undue influence or fraud;
f. The Hon'ble Arbitrator has failed to appreciate that the respondent has failed to show that the agreement dated:23-12-2001 was never entered into between the respondent and the petitioner and is therefore unenforceable; and g. The impugned award is against settled principles of law and is in conflict with public policy of India and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
11. After admitting of this suit, notice was issued to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has appeared through his counsel and contested the suit by filing objections, wherein the 1st defendant has 14 A.S.No. 70/2012 contended that the award dated:25-6-2012 passed by the 2nd defendant is valid and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the award of 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant has verified the pleadings, documents and supporting evidence and passed the well-reasoned Order. The grounds raised by the petitioner does not fall under any clause of Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Inter-alia, on these grounds, the 1st defendant seeks for dismissing of this suit.
12. As the present suit has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, let me first of all consider the scope of Section 34 of the Act.
Section 34 of the Act, contemplates that :
" 34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.-
(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3).
(2) An arbitral award my be set aside by the Court only if -
(i) a party was under some incapacity, or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or 15 A.S.No. 70/2012
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an Arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration:
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or
(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provisions of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or
(b) the Court finds that -
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.
Explanation 1.- For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if.-
(i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or section 81; or 16 A.S.No. 70/2012
(ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
Explanation 2.- For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.", (2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award:
Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence."
13. It is to be noted that Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-Section 2 and 2A of Section 34 were introduced vide amendment to the Act with effect from 23.10.2015. Thus the only grounds under which an arbitration award can be set aside under law are those which are contained in Section 34(2) (a) and (b). As far as Sub-Section 2(a) is concerned, there is no allegation whatsoever that (i) that either party was under any incapacity; or (ii) that the arbitration agreement was invalid under any law whatsoever; or
(iii) that the Plaintiff was not given proper notice of the Arbitrator appointment or the arbitral proceedings or he was unable to present his case; or (iv) the award deals 17 A.S.No. 70/2012 with any dispute not contemplated; or (v) constitution of the tribunal was contrary or in conflict to any provision of the Act. Thus, the only ground raised by the Plaintiff are under sub clause (b) of sub-section 2 of Section 34 of th Act. Under sub Clause (b) of sub- section 2 of Section 34 of the Act, the only grounds are either (i) that the subject matter of the dispute is not arbitrable and (ii) the award conflicts with 'public policy of India'.
14. The question of what constitutes a 'conflict with public policy of India' was dealt with in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associate Builders V. Delhi Development Authority reported in (2015)3 SCC
49. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the award will be in conflict with the Public Policy of India in the following cases :
(i) If the award is against fundamental policy of Indian law;
(ii) If the arbitral award is against interest of India;
(iii) If the arbitral award is in conflict with basic notions of 'justice' ;
(iv) If the arbitral award is in conflict with basic notions of 'morality'; and
(v) If the arbitral award is 'patently illegal'.18 A.S.No. 70/2012
Pursuant to the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Section 34 of the Act was amended to include Explanation (1) and (2) and sub-section 2(a). Thus, the principles laid down in the case of Associate Builders have been statutorily incorporated in Section 34 of the Act.
15. In the instant case, there is no allegation of whatsoever that the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption. Thus, clause (i) of Explanation 1 has no application. Clause (ii) and (iii) make it clear that the only 'conflict with public policy' would be if the award was in contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law or in conflict with basis notions of morality and justice. As explained in Associate Builders case, the concept of fundamental policy is not wide ranging or expansive. As laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court, it contemplates a direct violation of any statutory provision or refusal to follow orders of a superior court. Furthermore, it would require a judicial approach by the Arbitrator in conduct the arbitration proceedings.
16. Thus, a reading of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associate Builders, which finds statutory expression in the amendment of Section 34 of the Act, leads to the inevitable conclusion that a challenge under Section 34(2)(b) of the Act (under 19 A.S.No. 70/2012 which, the present suit is concerned) is confined to the following :
(i) That the award is induced by fraud or coercion or violates confidentiality under the conciliation proceedings. There is no such allegation in the present case;
(ii) That the award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, which would essentially mean - (a) it violates the provisions of law; or (b) disregards orders of a superior court; or (c) where the Arbitrator does not follow judicial approach, i.e. acts in an arbitrary and whimsical manner.
(iii) In addition, an award can be set aside if there is patent illegality on the face of the award. This would involve a case where the award is on its face without examination of evidence or anything else, ex facie shows an illegality. The proviso to Section 34(2A) makes it clear that patent illegally does not involve an erroneous application of law (assuming there is erroneous application of law) or any re-appreciation of evidence in the matter.
The Hon'ble Maharastra High Court in the case of Indian Commercial Company Ltd., Vs. Amrish Kilachand and others reported in [2002(5) Mh.L.J.650] held that :
" Arbitration and Conciliation Act 926 of 1996, S.34 and Civil Procedure Code, S.47 - Legal misconduct of Arbitrator - Not a ground for setting aside an award ...."
17. In the instant case, the Plaintiff has asked this court to re-appreciate and reconsider the facts which are already dealt by the learned Tribunal in detail culminating into a reasoned award. The scope of 20 A.S.No. 70/2012 Section 34 of the Act, does not allow this court to either re-appreciate the evidence or to dwell into facts already dealt by the learned Tribunal. The merits of the arbitral award assailable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, only when the award is conflict with the public policy of India as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in 2015(3) SCC 49.
18. The Arbitral records clearly indicates that the learned Arbitrator has gone in detail every minute material available on record and has arrived at just and fair conclusion. Added to that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Corporation case referred supra, lays down the principle that If the Arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the contract, that is an error within his jurisdiction. But if he wonders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits a jurisdictional error. But here, absolutely no case is made out by the plaintiff to establish that learned arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction by wondering outside the contract and dealt the matter not allotted to him. Added to that, their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically mandated that extrinsic evidence is admissible in such cases because the dispute is not something which arises under or in relation to the 21 A.S.No. 70/2012 contract or dependent on the construction of the contract or to be determined within the award. The ambiguity of the award can, in such cases, be resolved by admitting extrinsic evidence. The rationals of this rule is that the nature of the dispute is something which has to be determined outside and independent of what appears in the award. Such a jurisdictional error needs to be proved by evidence extrinsic to the award. But here in this case, absolutely no evidence placed by the plaintiff to establish such apparent jurisdictional error committed by the learned arbitrator.
19. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that absolutely no grounds are made out by the Plaintiff to establish any of the grounds mentioned in the plaint or any of the grounds available in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment referred supra rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Corporation makes it very clear that this court cannot sit on an appellate jurisdiction and the arbitral award cannot be set aside on trivial grounds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court consistently mandated that, if the Arbitrator wonders outside the work and deals with the matter not allotted to him, then only it can be termed as judicial error. Apart from that, the Arbitration 22 A.S.No. 70/2012 and Conciliation Act makes provision for review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness, intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like fraud or bias by the arbitrator, violation of natural justice. Scheme of the provisions aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the courts jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it. Herein this case, the learned Arbitrator has dealt the matter squarely within the four corners of the matter allotted to him. Added to that, no act is done by the learned Arbitrator which could be termed the award as perverse or unfair and unreasonable so as to shock the conscience of the court. Under these circumstances, I hold that the Plaintiff has utterly failed in establishing that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator falls within any of the clauses of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, much less, none of the grounds mentioned in the plaint is established, accordingly, I answer the above points in the negative.
23 A.S.No. 70/201220. Point No.2: In view of the foregoing reasons and findings on Point No.1, the suit of the Plaintiff fails and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit filed by the Plaintiff under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is hereby dismissed with costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 2nd day of July, 2018).
(Parameshwara Prasanna. B.) LXII A. C.C. & S.J., (CCH No.63) and C/C of VI A.C.C. & S.J., (CCH No.11) Bengaluru City.
24 A.S.No. 70/201202-07-2018 Judgment passed and pronounced in Open Court (vide separate). Operative portion thereof is as under:
The suit filed by the Plaintiff under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is hereby dismissed with costs.
LXII A.C.C. & S.J., (CCH No.63) & and C/C. of VI A.C.C. & S.J., (CCH No.11), Bengaluru City.25 A.S.No. 70/2012