Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kotak Securities Ltd vs Chethan Bhandary on 11 July, 2016
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Uday Umesh Lalit
SLP(C) Nos. 10711-10712 of 2014
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.6 SECTION IVA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 10711-10712/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22/02/2013
in RFA No. 1199/2012 19/02/2014 in IA No. 2/2014 19/02/2014 in RFA
No. 1199/2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
KOTAK SECURITIES LTD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
CHETHAN BHANDARY & ORS Respondent(s)
(With office report)
Date : 11/07/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Robin R. David, Adv.
Mr. Febin V.Mathew, Adv.
Ms. Megha Srivastava, Adv.
For M/s. Dua Associates, Advs.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The respondent herein by his letter dated 17th November, 2015 and 16th January, 2016 expressed that he may neither wanted legal assistance by way of amicus nor was willing to appear and defend his case. Instead he made it clear that this Court can dispose of this case in his absence. Since the respondent has taken such a definite stand we heard Mr. Robin R. David, learned counsel appearing for Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the petitioner. The learned counsel after KALYANI GUPTA Date: 2016.07.15 10:22:04 IST Reason: referring to the Award of the Arbitrator in particular Clauses (2), (3) and (4) submitted that PAGE NO. 1 of 2 SLP(C) Nos. 10711-10712 of 2014 as a matter of fact the interest calculation as per the said clause was worked out and a sum of Rs.11,77,453/-(Rupees Eleven lakhs seventy seven thousand and four hundred fifty three) which include the principal as well as the interest in terms of the Award was settled by way of cheque dated 18th February, 2011 and he also executed a receipt dated 4th March, 2011 towards the Arbitral Award amount. The learned counsel brought to our notice the said fact noted by the learned Sixth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in the judgment dated 11th April, 2012. However, in the impugned judgment, we do not find any reference to the said fact projected before the High Court. We, therefore, give liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court by way of review and seek for appropriate orders before the High Court. With that liberty, this Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
[KALYANI GUPTA] [RAJ RANI NEGI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
PAGE NO. 2 of 2