Karnataka High Court
M/S Vaswani Estates Developers vs M/S Bangalore Baptist Church on 5 October, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No. 40800/2012 (GM-RES)
AND W.P.No. 40853/2012
BETWEEN:
M/s. Vaswani Estates Developers
Private Limited
A Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956
Having its registered office at
Vaswani Victoria, No.30,
Victoria Road,
Bangalore - 560 047.
Represented by its
General Managar - Liaison
Mr. Lava Kumar ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. Udaya Holla, Sr. Counsel)
AND:
1. M/s. Bangalore Baptist Church
A Registered Trust and having its office at
No.11, Commissariat Road Property,
Bangalore - 560 025.
Represented by its
Chairman and Pastor
Rev. A. Daniel Bhasme
2. Pastor Daniel A Bhasme
Aged about 45 years,
S/o. Late B. Ananth
R/at No.11,
Commissariat Road,
Bangalore - 560 025.
2
3. Mr. Henry Cox
Aged about 58 years,
S/o. Late C.D.Samuel,
No.11, Nandini Street,
Ramamurthy Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 016.
4. Muthuswamy Bhagya Raj
Aged about 44 years,
S/o. Late Muthuswamy,
R/at No.629/2, 1st Main,
12th Cross, Vinayaka Nagar,
AFP Extension,
Bangalore - 560 017.
5. Mr. Jamesh Theophilus Bhasme
Aged about 55 years,
S/o. Mr. B. Ananth
R/at No.1472, Peace Home,
14th Cross, Prashanth Nagar,
Dasarahalli,
Bangalore - 560 057.
6. Mr. Prema Sundar K. Manukumaran
Aged about 55 years,
S/o. Late Mankumaran,
R/at No.29, 1st Floor,
Kariyappa Layout,
2nd Main Road,
Yerenapalya,
Ramamurthy Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 016.
7. Mr. Shanth Raj
Aged about 69 years,
S/o. Late Narasappa,
R/at No.28, Suverna Nilaya,
2nd Cross, 3rd Block,
Nagarbhavi,
Bangalore - 560 072. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Vivek Holla, Adv. for M/s. Holla and Holla Advs.)
3
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order of the
trial Court date 28.09.2012 vide Annexure-Q.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the City Civil Court, Bangalore City, ordering emergent notice to the respondents on the interim application filed by the petitioner seeking temporary injunction against the respondents.
2. A petition is filed by the petitioner-company in arbitration case A.A.No.755/2012 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, contending that the respondents herein were acting contrary to the understanding reached between the parties violating the Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.09.2011. As the said Memorandum of Understanding stipulates that the parties have to submit their dispute and differences relating to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding to be resolved by arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'), petitioner has filed the application. Petitioner has approached the court below under the provisions of the Act. An application under Section 9 4 of the Act is filed praying for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the respondents, their agents or nominees or anybody claiming through or under them from committing breach of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.09.2011 entered into between the petitioner and the respondents and also from alienating or encumbering the property in question. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 9 of the Act was also filed seeking an order of temporary injunction pending service of notice and pending disposal of the application by way of ex-parte interim order. The court below has not granted ex-parte interim order of temporary injunction. It has persuaded itself to issue emergent notice on the application and also on the main matter. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ petiton is filed.
3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Uday Holla for the petitioner and perused the entire petition averments.
4. It is seen from the proceedings of the court below that the matter is adjourned and listed on 17.10.2012 for the appearance of respondents after issuing emergent notice on the application filed for temporary injunction. The court below has perused the main petition and the averments made in the 5 interim application and the affidavit and as also the documents placed on record. It has found it just and necessary to hear the other parties before granting any interim order. Hence, it has issued emergent notice.
5. In my considered view, it is not appropriate to interfere in the matter at this stage. However, ends of justice will be met, if it is observed that the court below has to consider the request made by the petitioner for grant of interim order on the next date of hearing by providing fair and reasonable opportunity to both the parties. It will be open to the petitioner to persuade the court below for making proper arrangement by passing such interim orders as permissible in law, if for any reason the matter is likely to be prolonged. However, no interference at this stage in the matter in exercise of the writ jurisdiction is called for.
6. Petition is accordingly disposed of declining to interfere in the matter, but subject to the above observations.
SD/-
JUDGE KK