Puttakkalavar D Basavaraj vs M/S Hdfc Bank Limited on 3 June, 2019

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Puttakkalavar D Basavaraj vs M/S Hdfc Bank Limited on 3 June, 2019

Bench: S.G. Pandit

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 3 R D DAY OF JUNE 2019

                     BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

           W.P.NO. 110337/2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:

PUTTAKKALAVAR D BASAVARAJ
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
SHAKUNTHALA W/O PUTTAKALAVAR
BASAVARAJ, AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O : NO. 16/17, 3 R D CROSS,
SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY NAGAR,
2 N D STAGE, DAVANAGERE,
DIST: DAVANAGERE.
                              -  PETI TIONER
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S HDFC BANK LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
HDFC BANK HOUSE,
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
LOWER PAREL (WEST),
MUMBAI-400 013.
                               -    RESPONDENT

     THIS  WRI T  PETI TION IS  FILED  UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTI TUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRI T IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
05.04.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E & ETC.
                                  2


    THIS WRI T PETI TION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05.04.2019 vide Annexure-E passed by the Arbitrator in Arbitration Proceedings No. 414/2017.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, before the Arbitrator the respondent filed evidence of P.W.1. On filing of the evidence by P.W.1 the Arbitrator parted for cross-examination by way of interrogatories. Further, it is stated that the petitioner intends to cross examine P.W.1 orally and filed an application to that effect. The Arbitrator by order dated 05.04.2019 rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Arbitrator is not bound by the provisions of CPC 3 as well as the Evidence Act and it has to follow its own procedure. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner intends to cross examine P.W.1 orally. If orally cross-examined, the truth would come out and filing of interrogatories would not serve the purpose of cross-examination.

4. It is an admitted fact that, before the Arbitrator P.W.1 has filed his affidavit evidence. The Arbitrator has posted the matter for filing interrogatories by way of cross examination. The Arbitrator has to follow his own procedure in compliance with principles of natural justice.

5. In the case on hand, the Arbitrator has felt that the cross-examination has to be by filing 4 interrogatories by the petitioner herein. Filing of interrogatories need not be strictly by way of cross-examination but it may be answered to the evidence of P.W.1. If interrogatories are filed by respondent the cross-examination of P.W.1 narrows down. If thereafter the petitioner intends on any particular issue to cross- examine, it is open for the petitioner to make an application for cross examination indicating the necessity for such cross-examination. With the above observation the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE bv v

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court