Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.1488 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
Between:
Shanthinarayana, Aged about 69 years, S/o Venkataswamy, Partner of Cauvery Builders, R/at No.2, 2nd Floor, S.S. Apartments, Ramnagar, Andra Pradesh Also served at Flat No.404, Cauvery Comforts, Venkatapura Main Road, Jakkasandra, Bengaluru – 560 064.
…Petitioner (By Sri. Manohar N, Advocate)
And:
Pushpa Ramu, Aged about 54 years, W/o Seetharamaiah, Partner of Cauvery Builders, Residing at Sampige, Tumkur District 572 102.
- 2 - 2. B. Sangameshwara Babu, Aged about 50 years, Partners of Cauvery Builders, R/at “Saipriya Residency” Flat No.305, 3rd Cross, 1st Phase, 13th Cross, Sarakki, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 006.
B.K. Guruprasad, Aged about 49 years, S/o B. Krishnaiah, Partner of Cauvery Builders, R/at No.6-5-503, Maruthinagar Extension, Ananthapura, Andra Pradesh – 515 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 22.11.2016 passed in I.A. No.4 in A.S. No.4/2015 pending before the City Civil Court (CCH8) Bengaluru and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
- 3 - ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 22.11.2016 passed on I.A.No.4 in A.S.No.4/2015. In that light, the petitioner is seeking that the Court below be directed to consider the application filed by him.
The petitioner and the respondents herein were before the Arbitral Tribunal in view of certain dispute having arisen between them. The petitioner herein was the respondent in the said proceedings. The learned Arbitrator has passed the award on 21.11.2014 in CMP No.112/2010. The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the award, has initiated the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), before the Court below. In the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed an application under Order XVI Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to summon the Income Tax
- 4 - Officer, the details of whom is furnished in the application. The Court below through the order dated 22.11.2016 has rejected the said application. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers including the order impugned herein. In that background, while considering the matter, what is necessary to be borne in mind is that the instant proceedings before the Court below is under Section 34 of the Act. In that regard, the limited scope available in such proceedings also cannot be lost sight of. In that background, though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Arbitrator has discarded the document marked at Ex.D-18 and the summons presently sought is therefore to establish that document and the officer was required to be summoned along with the original, such contention cannot be accepted at this point since the
- 5 - same would be beyond the scope of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.
It is for the Court below to take note of the said argument and to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the learned Arbitrator was right in rejecting the said document and if any other conclusion is to be reached if the main matter itself is considered, but the present proceedings cannot be converted into another trial.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error in rejecting I.A.No.4 through the order dated 22.11.2016 so as to call for interference in this petition.
Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-