SHANTHINARAYANA vs. PUSHPA RAMU

PDF · subscribers
WP/1488/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01000586201718 January 2018Bench: A.S.BOPANNA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act have a limited scope and cannot be converted into a fresh trial. Therefore, the lower court did not err in rejecting the application to summon the Income Tax Officer.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, aggrieved by an arbitral award, filed proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He sought to summon an Income Tax Officer to establish a discarded document, but his application was rejected by the lower court.

What were the issues?

Whether summoning an Income Tax Officer to re-examine a discarded document falls within the limited scope of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 34

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 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:

1.

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.

3.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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/-

More judgments on Section 34

All 288 judgments and leading authorities on Section 34 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →