Karnataka High Court
Srit India Private Limited vs Whale Cloud Technology India Private ... on 3 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1256
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.18/2020
BETWEEN:
SRIT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT SRIT HOUSE, #113/1B,
ITPL MAIN ROAD KUNDALAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 037
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY
NAMBIAR RAGHAVAN MADHUSOODAN
S/O LATE K.R. NAMBIAR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL
A/W SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
WHALE CLOUD TECHNOLOGY INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
2
AT LEVEL-2, ELEGANCE TOWER
MATHURA ROAD, JASOLA DISTRICT
NEW DELHI - 110 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SOUTH ASIA BU DAVY CHEN.
...RESPONDENT
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 37(1)(b) OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT R/W RULE 4 OF THE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA ARBITRATION
(PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURTS) RULES
2001 R/W SECTION 13(1) OF THE COMMERCIAL
COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION, COMMERCIAL
APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS ACT 2015,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 12.05.2020 IN I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER
ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF
CPC AND SECTION 9 OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 THE IN
C.COMM.AA.NO.1/2020 BY THE LEARNED XV CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE SO FAR AS REFUSING
GRANT OF EX.-PARTE INTERM ORDER (CCH-3)
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Anuparna Bordoloi for appellant.
2. Perused the records and order under challenge dated 12.05.2012 where under learned trial Judge has issued emergent notice on I.A.No.1, which application has been filed seeking order of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent not to carryout work themselves or issue any work order to any third party vendors insofar as scope of petitioner's work alleged to have been entrusted by respondent under the teaming agreement dated 07.12.2018.
3. Subsequent event to filing of petition before trial Court, which has unfolded is, a communication dated 12.05.2020 forwarded by respondent to appellant/petitioner terminating the teaming agreement dated 07.12.2018 and letter of intent dated 21.02.2020. Same has been placed on 4 record by the appellant along with this appeal as document No.5.
4. Petition under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, came to be filed before trial Court by the appellant herein for the following reliefs:
a. Issue an order of temporary
injunction restraining the
respondent not to carry out works
themselves or issue any work order to any third party vendors for the petitioner's scope of work under the teaming agreement dated 07.12.2018 other than petitioner herein.
b. Issue an order directing the Respondent to issue the Purchase Order and Advance Purchase Order for the same value which is issued by TCIL to the Respondent for petitioner's scope of work under the teaming agreement dated 07.12.2018.
5
5. In aid of the said relief and as an ad- interim measure, interlocutory application viz., I.A.No.1 was filed seeking temporary injunction till the pendency of petition/application filed under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned trial Judge has opined that as on the date of teaming agreement tender was not yet accepted in favour of TCIL company. It is further observed by the learned trial Judge that respondent has not entered into agreement with regard to any specified amount. Hence, emergent notice was ordered on I.A.No.1. It is this order which is assailed in the present appeal.
6. Undertaking the exercise of examining the appeal on merits in the background of grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, would not arise for the simple reason that, subsequent to the filing of petition under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as already noticed 6 hereinabove, respondent has forwarded a communication to the appellant/petitioner terminating the very "teaming agreement - dated 07.12.2018". Appellant has been seeking interim measure by laying foundation on the "teaming agreement - dated 07.12.2018". In view of the said teaming agreement itself having been terminated by respondent we are of the considered view that petition filed under Section 9(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the trial Court, interlocutory application viz., I.A.No.1 as well as prayer sought for in this appeal have become infructuous and it would not survive for consideration, though as on the date of filing of petition under Section 9(2) the "teaming agreement - dated 07.12.2018" had not been terminated. Due to subsequent event of "teaming agreement-dated 07.12.2018" having been terminated by the respondent, considering the prayers of appellant/petitioner either by this Court in this appeal memorandum or in the petition filed under 7 Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the trial Court, would not arise as it would not survive and said prayers have become infructuous. Hence, reserving liberty to the appellant/petitioner to work out its rights in accordance with law, this appeal stands dismissed as having become infructuous. Needless to state that in the event of fresh petition being filed by the appellant, trial Court would consider the same on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by its order dated 12.05.2020.
All pending applications shall stand consigned to records.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE DR