Bangalore District Court
) M/S.S G Rent A Car vs ) M/S. Ikf Finance Limited on 11 March, 2022
KABC010267342019
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
Dated this the 11th day of March 2022
PRESENT: Sri. Rama Naik, B.Com., LL.B.,
VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City
A.S.NO.92/2019
APPELLANTS/ 1) M/S.S G RENT A CAR
PLAINTIFFS Reptd.by its Proprietor-
Mr.M.S.Chandrasekar
Having Office at No.2, Shop No.3
Shopping Street, Kumarapark West
Bengaluru -560 020.
2) MR.MANJUNATHA.B
S/o.Mr.Basavaraj
Old No.48, New No.145
Allammaprabhu Road
Near Ramamandir, Gavipura
Bengaluru -560 019.
[By Pleader Sri.John Paul.A]
/Vs/
A.S NO.92/2019
2
RESPONDENTS/ 1) M/S. IKF FINANCE LIMITED
DEFENDANTS Having its registered Office at
D.No.40-1-144, Corporate Center
M.G.Road, Vijayawada - 10.
Having branch office at SS Arcade
Old No.151/1, New No.56
Wilson Garden, Bengaluru -560 027.
Reptd.by its Legal Manager - Mr.J.Vijayaraj
[By Pleader Sri.Shivakumar B Gouda]
2) MR.THIRU A.NOOR AHMED, B.A. B.L.,
Former President/District Judge
Kai Roon - Anwardin Manzil
St.No.7, 8, 6, thirumarai Nagar
Podanur Road, Coimabatore - 641 023
Sole Arbitrator/Arbirak Tribunal
[Arbitrator]
JUDGMENT
Suit is filed by Plaintiffs under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity 'A&C Act'] to set aside the award dated 30.04.2019 passed by sole Arbitrator/Defendant No.2 in A.R.C No.9/2018.
2) Facts, as pleaded in plaint, are that Plaintiff No.1 availed loan from Defendant No.1 for purchase A.S NO.92/2019 3 of vehicle - ASHOK LEYLAND in the year 2016. Due to financial set backs, he is unable to pay the loan amount as agreed despite his best efforts, and therefore, Defendant No.1 took possession of the vehicle from Plaintiff No.1 and sold the same. Sale proceeds of the vehicle would be more than enough to close the outstanding loan amount. Despite that, Defendant No.1 initiated arbitration proceedings against the terms of Loan Agreement before the sole Arbitrator and got the impugned award.
3) Challenge made to the award is that procedure adopted by the sole Arbitrator was incorrect and same was not agreed upon by Plaintiffs; no opportunity was given to Plaintiffs to put-forth their case effectively; reasons assigned in allowing the claim are against law and contrary to evidence; award passed is in violation of substantive law as well as procedural law applicable to the proceedings; mandatory provisions of the A.S NO.92/2019 4 A&C Act have not been adhered to; sole Arbitrator has ignored the Indian Evidence Act; award is passed disregarding the terms of Loan Agreement; and sole Arbitrator, without having jurisdiction, passed the award, which is non est in the eye of law.
4) For the above reasons, Plaintiffs seek to set aside the award on the grounds that award opposes the Public Policy of India and same contravenes the principles of natural justice. Hence, pray for setting aside the award by allowing the suit.
5) Defendant No.1, in its written statement, states that Plaintiffs have not complied with the mandatory provisions as contemplated in Section 34(5) of the A&C Act and therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed in limine.
6) It is stated that, as Plaintiffs failed to pay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of A.S NO.92/2019 5 Loan Agreement, Defendant No.1 initiated the arbitration proceedings before the sole Arbitrator after following the procedures contemplated in the A & C Act and sole Arbitrator, after giving sufficient opportunities to both parties, based on the evidence produced before him, passed the award directing Plaintiffs to pay a sum of Rs.6,37,138/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.
7) It is stated that opportunity given to Plaintiffs were not availed of by them. There is no error or illegality in the award passed by sole Arbitrator and that the grounds urged by plaintiffs are not valid grounds to invoke the provisions of Section 34 of the A&C Act. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
8) Heard learned Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1. Perused the written argument filed by Defendant No.1 and the arbitral records.
A.S NO.92/2019 6
9) Points that arise for consideration are :
(1) Whether suit filed by Plaintiffs is not maintainable in view of non-compliance of Section 34(5) of the A&C Act?
(2) Do Plaintiffs make out any of
the grounds as enumerated in
Section 34 of the A&C Act to set
aside the award dated
30.04.2019?
(3) What Order?
10) My answer to above points are :
Point No.1 - In Negative
Point No.2 - In Negative
Point No.3 - As per final order for
the following :
RE ASONS
11) Point No.1 : Plaintiffs, being Respondents
in arbitration proceedings, file the present suit to set aside the award dated 30.04.2019, whereby sole Arbitrator directed Plaintiffs to pay to Defendant No.1, being Claimant in arbitration A.S NO.92/2019 7 proceedings, a sum of Rs.6,37,138/- and interest @ 18% per annum on said sum from 29.10.2018 till realization.
12) Defendant No.1 has put-forth contention that Plaintiffs have not complied with the mandatory provisions as envisaged in Section 34(5) of the A&C Act before institution of the present suit and therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
13) Section 34(5) of the A&C Act states that an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act shall be filed by a party only after issue of prior notice to other party and such application shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicant endorsing compliance with the said requirement.
14) In State of Bihar and Others vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti, [(2018) 9 SCC 472], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to A.S NO.92/2019 8 hold that the object of Section 34(5) and (6) is as has been stated by the Law Commission, the requirement that an application under Section 34 be disposed of expeditiously within a period of one year from the date of service of notice. In para-19, it has been held as under :
"19. It will thus be seen that Section 34(5) does not deal with the power of the Court to condone the non-compliance thereof. It is imperative to note that the provision is procedural, the object behind which is to dispose of applications under Section 34 expeditiously. One must remember the wise observation contained in Kailash, where the object of such a provision is only to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. All rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice and if, in advancing the cause of justice, it is made clear that such provision should be construed as directory then so be it."
15) From the above conspectus of law, it would be clear that merely because prior notice was not issued to Defendant No.1 by Plaintiffs before filing the present suit, the same does not dis-entitle them to get decision on the relief claimed in the present suit. In that view, there is no reason to dismiss the A.S NO.92/2019 9 suit merely because the requirement of issue of notice as contemplated in Section 34(5) of the A&C Act has not been complied with by Plaintiffs before filing the present suit. Accordingly, I answer the above point in negative.
16) Point No.2 : Plaintiffs have assailed the award on various grounds, first of all, it is the contention of Plaintiffs that Clause-10.17 of the Loan Agreement deals with the jurisdiction of Courts of Vijayawada. Despite that, venue of arbitration has been changed unilaterally by manipulation and same has been conducted at Coimbatore against the terms of Loan Agreement and therefore, award passed by sole Arbitrator is non est in the eye of law, as same has been passed by sole Arbitrator without having territorial jurisdiction.
A.S NO.92/2019 10
17) On the contrary, Defendant No.1 has urged that arbitration proceedings were initiated as per the terms of Loan Agreement. Clause-10.17 of the Agreement deals with venue of arbitration which is at Coimbatore and accordingly, arbitration proceedings were initiated at Coimbatore only by appointing sole Arbitrator.
18) Clause-10.16(b) of the Loan Agreement specifies that the venue of arbitration proceedings shall be at a place as mentioned in Item No.20 of the Schedule.
19) Clause-10.17 reads that the Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Coimbatore. It may be noticed that, in Clause- 10.17, word 'Coimbatore' has been written in hand after striking out the word 'Vijayawada'.
A.S NO.92/2019 11
20) Serial No.20 of the Schedule appended to the Loan Agreement clearly mentions that place of arbitration as 'Coimbatore'.
21) A meaningful reading of Clause-10.16(b) and Serial No.20 of the Schedule appended to the Loan Agreement, it is clear that, for the purpose of initiation of arbitration proceedings, the parties have agreed upon the venue of arbitration as 'Coimbatore'.
22) Similarly, for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Courts, the parties have agreed upon the jurisdiction of the Courts at 'Coimbatore'. If the contention of Plaintiffs is pressed into service, it has to be said that Plaintiffs ought to have filed the present suit within the jurisdiction of the Courts of Coimbatore. If it is hypothetically assumed that Plaintiffs had agreed upon the jurisdiction of the Courts of 'Vijayawada' instead of 'Coimbatore', then A.S NO.92/2019 12 also, Plaintiffs ought to have filed the present suit within the jurisdiction of the Courts of 'Vijayawada'. Be that as it may.
23) In the instant case, Defendant No.1 initiated the arbitration proceedings within the territorial limits of 'Coimbatore' as agreed in Clause-10.16(b) of the Loan Agreement. In that way, there is no reason to contend that award has been passed, without having territorial jurisdiction.
24) Secondly, it has been urged by Plaintiffs that sole Arbitrator did not give them opportunity to present their case and award was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
25) On the other hand, Defendant No.1 contends that Plaintiff No.1 was duly served with notice of arbitration proceedings, and though he appeared before the sole Arbitrator through his advocate, he A.S NO.92/2019 13 did choose not to contest the claim of Defendant No.1.
26) Arbitral award makes it clear that, in pursuance of the notice of arbitration proceedings, Plaintiff No.1 marked his appearance through his advocate before the sole Arbitrator. However, he did chose not to file his statement of defence or to contest the claim of Defendant No.1.
27) It would be worthwhile to read relevant paras of the award. They read thus :
"The Notice to the 1st Respondent is duly served. Advocate Mr.S.Shanmugam filed vakalat for R1. Though, sufficient time was given to the R1 for filing counter, he failed to file the same. The notice to the 2 nd Respondent is returned as "LEFT".
The object of referring a dispute to the arbitration is due to its efficacy and speedy disposal of matters. The Respondents being oblivious have not availed the sufficient opportunities. Therefore, this Tribunal has no other option except to proceeds as no representation and decide issues involved between the Claimant and the Respondents on the basis of available documents placed before this arbitral A.S NO.92/2019 14 tribunal, by virtue of section 25(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
28) Above observation of the sole Arbitrator is further buttressed by the pleadings in plaint. In plaint para-26, Plaintiffs have specifically averred that, after receipt of the notice of arbitration proceedings, Plaintiff No.1 appeared before the sole Arbitrator through his representative.
29) It is submitted that though the arbitral Tribunal is not bound by the rules of procedure as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the same does not absolve the Arbitral Tribunal from passing an order for publishing the arbitration notice to Plaintiff No.2 through newspaper by way of substituted mode.
30) In support of Plaintiffs' contention, they have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Srei Infrastructure A.S NO.92/2019 15 Private Ltd vs. Tuff Drilling (P) Ltd [(2018) 11 SCC 470], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that Section 19 cannot be read to mean that the Arbitral Tribunal is incapacitated in drawing sustenance from any provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. [para-26]
31) Award goes to show that notice of arbitration proceedings was issued to Plaintiff No.2 to the address shown in cause title of plaint. Cause title of the award mentions the same address. Address of Plaintiff No.2 mentioned in cause title of plaint as well as cause title of the arbitral award is akin to the address mentioned in the Loan Agreement. Despite that, notice of arbitration proceedings issued to Plaintiff No.2 was returned with endorsement that "addressee left". After considering the same, the sole Arbitrator proceeded with the matter by virtue of Section 25(c) of the A&C Act.
A.S NO.92/2019 16
32) Section 3 of the A & C Act deals with receipt of written communications. It reads as under :
" 3. Receipt of written communications (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties-
(a) any written communication is deemed to have been received if it is delivered to the addressee personally or at his place of business, habitual a residence or mailing address, and
(b) if none of the places referred to in clause (a) can be found after making a reasonable inquiry, a written communication is deemed to have been received if it is sent to the addressee's last known place of business, habitual residence or mailing address by registered letter or by any other means which provides a record of the attempt to deliver it.
(2) The communication is deemed to have been received on the day it is so delivered.
(3) This section does not apply to written communication in respect of proceedings of any judicial authority."
33) Section 3(1)(b) of the A & C Act makes it clear that a written communication is deemed to have been received if the same is sent to the addressee's last known place of business, habitual A.S NO.92/2019 17 residence or mailing address by registered letter or by any other means which provides a record of the attempt to deliver it.
34) Clause-10.5 of the Loan Agreement specifies that the lender shall issue all such notices to borrower/guarantor to the address given in the Loan Agreement. Clause-10.5 reads as under :
"10.5 Any notice, letter or other documents sent by the Lender to the Borrower(s) and/or Guarantor(s), pursuant to this Agreement, shall be given at the address of the Borrower(s) and/or the Guarantor(s) as stated herein above and shall be deemed to have been received by the Borrower(s) and/or the Guarantor(s) on the expiry of three days after it has been sent by registered post, ordinary post or courier.
The Borrower(s) and/or the Guarantor(s) shall forthwith intimate the change in address to the Lender failing which service of a notice or correspondence to the address last given by the Borrower(s) and/or the Guarantor(s) shall be deemed to be service on the Borrower(s) and/or the Guarantor(s)."
35) Thus, it would be clear that notice of arbitration proceedings was sent to Plaintiff No.2 to A.S NO.92/2019 18 the address mentioned in the Loan Agreement, the last known address of Plaintiff No.2. Further, cause title of plaint makes it clear that Plaintiff No.2 is still residing in the same address, which is given by him at the time of availing the loan. In that view, it can be fairly said that sole Arbitrator proceeded with the matter in absence of Plaintiffs is in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement and Section 3(1)(b) of the A&C Act. In that circumstance, the question of publishing notice of arbitration by substituted mode by invoking the rules of procedure as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the sole Arbitrator would not arise at all.
36) Section 25 of the A&C Act deals with default of a party. It reads as under :
" 25. Default of a party Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where, without showing sufficient cause -
(a) the claimant fail to communicate his statement of claim in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 23, A.S NO.92/2019 19 the arbitral tribunal shall terminate the proceedings;
(b) the respondent fail to communicate his statement of defence in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 23, the arbiral tribunal shall continue the proceedings without treating that failure in itself as an admission of the allegations by the claimant ;
(c) a party fails to appear at an oral hearing or to produce documentary evidence, the arbitral tribunal may continue the proceedings and make the arbitral award on the evidence before it."
37) Section 25(b) mandates that if respondent fails to communicate his statement of defence in accordance with Section 23(1), the arbitral Tribunal shall continue the proceedings. Section 25(c) makes it clear that if a party fails to appear at an oral hearing or to produce documentary evidence, the arbitral tribunal may continue the proceedings and make the arbitral award on the evidence before it. In that view, there finds no fault in proceeding with the matter by sole Arbitrator and same is in A.S NO.92/2019 20 accordance with Section 25(b) and (c) of the A & C Act.
38) It is, thus, clear that it is not the case where the opportunities of being heard were denied. It is the case where Plaintiffs did choose not to avail the opportunities given to them to answer the claim of Defendant No.1. In that circumstance, there is no reason to contend that they were denied the opportunities of being heard. In that view, there would be no reason to hold that award has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. On the contrary, award itself is self explanatory that despite giving opportunities to Plaintiffs, they failed to avail the same.
39) Thirdly, it is contended by Plaintiffs that Loan Agreement is compulsorily attestable document under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and same is not attested by two witnesses. Hence, Loan A.S NO.92/2019 21 Agreement is not a valid document and same could not be considered by the sole Arbitrator in the evidence of Defendant No.1.
40) First of all, it may be noticed that only Mortgage Deed under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Gift Deed under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are compulsorily attestable documents. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.
41) Loan Agreement entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 is not at all compulsorily attestable document under law. Plaintiffs failed to find any such provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to say that Loan Agreement is compulsorily attestable document. In A.S NO.92/2019 22 that view, it can be said that their contention is not amenable to reason.
42) It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for Plaintiffs that reference of dispute to arbitration was not brought to the notice of Plaintiffs by Defendant No.1 before initiation of arbitration proceedings before the sole Arbitrator and therefore, initiation of arbitration proceedings, without complying with the mandatory provision of law envisaged in Section 21 of the A & C Act, is not sustainable in law.
43) In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alupro Building Systems Pvt Ltd vs. Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd [2017 SCC OnLine Del 7228], wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was leased to hold that, in absence of an agreement to the contrary, the notice under Section A.S NO.92/2019 23 21 of the A & C Act by the claimant invoking the arbitration clause, preceding the reference of disputes to arbitration, is mandatory.
44) It may be noticed that no such ground for non-service of arbitration notice has been agitated in Section 34 petition itself. For the first time, the alleged non-service of notice of arbitration has been put-forth by way of argument. Be that as it may.
45) Arbitral records amply make it clear that Defendant No.1, before reference of dispute to arbitration, issued arbitration notice to Plaintiffs on 03.10.2018, stating that if Plaintiffs fail to pay the outstanding loan amount, the same will be referred to sole Arbitrator, namely Mr.A.Noor Ahmed for arbitration of the dispute at Coimbatore. Said arbitration notice dated 03.10.2018 is marked as Ex.P.7 before the sole Arbitrator. Postal receipts appended to Ex.P.7 go to show that arbitration A.S NO.92/2019 24 notice at Ex.P.7 was sent to Plaintiff on 06.10.2018 and Track Consignment at Ex.P.8 makes it clear that item sent is shown to have been delivered on 09.10.2018. Thereafter, dispute was referred to sole Arbitrator on 29.10.2018. That being the state of affairs, there is no reason to contend that mandatory provision of law as envisaged in Section 21 of the A & C Act was not complied with by Defendant No.1 before initiation of arbitration proceedings.
46) One more ground that has been urged by Plaintiffs is that affidavit relating to examination-in- chief filed by the authorized person of Defendant No.1 before the sole Arbitrator is not duly sworn in by him before the Notary Public and therefore, this procedural irregularity would directly go to the root of the matter and same would vitiate the award.
A.S NO.92/2019 25
47) To buttress his submission, he has placed the reliance on the following judgments :
(a) Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal vs M.S.S Food Products, [(2012) 2 SCC 196]; and
(b) Prashant and another vs. Municipal Council, Bhadrawati, [2009 (3) Mh.L.J].
48) In Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold thus:
"77. ... Where the examination in chief of a witness is produced in the form of an affidavit, such affidavit is always sworn before the Oath Commissioner or the notary or judicial officer or any other person competent to administer oath. The examination in chief is, thus, on oath already.
78. .....there is no requirement in Order 18 Rule 5 that in appealable cases, the witness must enter the witness box for production of his affidavit and formally prove the affidavit. ......"
49) In Prashant (supra), the question that has been considered is that whether the affidavits which are to be under the Code of Civil Procedure, A.S NO.92/2019 26 1908 can be sworn by on administering the oath to the deponents by any Notary appointed under the Notaries Act. For that, it has been held that the persons who may administer oath to the deponents are to be the persons who are authorized under Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure to do so. Therefore, the result is obvious that the Notaries are authorized to administer oath to the deponents.
50) Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 specifically states that "in the case of any affidavit under this Code". Above principles of law are necessarily to be adhered to while filing affidavits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
51) In the instant case, statement stating the facts relating to the claim was filed in the form of affidavit before the sole Arbitrator by Defendant No.1 through its authorized person along with relevant documents.
A.S NO.92/2019 27
52) Section 24 of the A & C Act deals with 'Hearings and written proceedings'. Section 24(1) states that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral Tribunal shall decide whether to hold oral hearings for the presentation of evidence or for oral argument, or whether the proceedings shall be conducted on the basis of the documents and other materials.
53) Thus, in absence of agreement between the parties, it is up to the Arbitrator to decide the procedures for hearings. Moreover, Arbitral Tribunal is not bound by the procedures as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, statement of facts relating to the claim filed before the sole Arbitrator by way of affidavit cannot be considered as affidavit filed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in which case, administration of the oath either by Judge, or Magistrate, or Oath Commissioner or Notary is made compulsory. In A.S NO.92/2019 28 that view, it can be safely said that statement of facts relating to claim filed by way of affidavit without there being sworn in before the Notary shall not come in the way of award unless it is shown that what prejudice would cause to Plaintiffs in not notarizing the statements of facts filed in the form of affidavit. That being the reason, the contention that has been urged by Plaintiffs is not amenable to reason.
54) It is to be noticed that Plaintiffs have assailed the award on merits, contending that Defendant No.1 has created false and fabricated documents; amount paid by them towards the loan has not been accounted; sale proceeds of the vehicle would be sufficient to close the loan amount; and Defendant No.1 has produced created statement of account.
A.S NO.92/2019 29
55) It is to be noticed that Plaintiffs have not taken any such contentions before the sole Arbitrator by filing their statement of defence. In other words, they have failed to avail the opportunities given to them to contest the claim of Defendant No.1.
56) In any event the question of assailing the award on merits in Section 34 petition is not at all permissible. Appreciation and assessing of evidence are matters, which exclusively come within the domain of the arbitral Tribunal. Said proposition of law has been laid down in P.R.Shah, Shares & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. vs. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd, [(2012) 1 SCC 594]. Hence, the contention that has been raised by Plaintiffs being a fact in issue, same is the subject matter of evidence which cannot be appreciated by this Court in the present suit. That apart, a meaningful reading of the award makes it clear that the sole A.S NO.92/2019 30 Arbitrator, while passing the award, has taken into consideration the terms of Agreement and documents produced by Defendant No.1. In view of established principles of law, this Court abstains from assailing the award on merits and same is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this Court.
57) In Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority, [(2015) 3 SCC 49], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that Fundamental Policy of India, Interest of India, Justice or Morality and Patent Illegality are the heads of Public Policy of India. It has been further held that award passed in contravention of substantive law of India, contravention of A & C Act, 1996, and contravention of terms of the contract, being the three sub-heads of patent illegality, would be regard as a patent illegality.
A.S NO.92/2019 31
58) Any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that Plaintiffs have made out any of the grounds under the heads of Public Policy of India. On the contrary, award makes it clear that the same has been passed in accordance with the terms of Agreement and same is supported by reasons. Award can be set aside for the grounds mentioned in Section 34 of the A & C Act. In the instant case, no such grounds are made out by Plaintiffs much- less the grounds mentioned in plaint. In that view, there is no reason to set aside the reasoned award. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative.
59) Point No.3 : For the foregoing discussion and answer to Points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER (1) Suit filed by Plaintiffs under Section 34 of the Arbitration and A.S NO.92/2019 32 Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award dated 30.04.2019 passed by sole Arbitrator/Defendant No.2 in A.R.C No.9/2018; is hereby dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, typed matter corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 11th day of March 2022) (RAMA NAIK) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City