1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 2nd day of September, ~ BEFORE: 'ram Horrnnx. MR JUSTICE Writ Pegzion No. 1 1945 o}'20a6 IGA_i~'¢:_Eg3 = " ' * --. V" BETWEEN 1.
DYNAS’I’Y PROPERTIES _
A COMPANY REGISTERED UND-33.,
THE COMPAMES Am’-, .1.9.55 i;a’AvIi~s_(3.. ”
ITS REGISTERED OFF:-GEM’ 2 , ”
NO. 150, lS’!FFLOO..”*EMBASSY_ ‘
POINT, IN¥+”AN?RY :’2oA_.D_,’,= ”
BANGA1.£3«R£«;1s4 56Q’€.30l_, _ .
REF’. 5′? F133 AUTHO-RISED $IGNA’i’_’0RY
MR. M’. c}o;;~>11~:A’m_. «_ ‘
MR. JITENDi?fiL_VVIRWAN!, ‘ ~
S/’C? MR. MOHA?5!VVT¥§W~AIfE,
AGED ABOUT 3’5Y§JAIR_S;
RESIDIN G AT I’~¥_O.’ .332,”
; EMBASSY’-.WO0’DS,’ 6-A,
.» « QCUNNI NGHAM V 395.0,
” BA,NGA1,QRE -» 560 052.
FETITIDNERS
{By Srfi. Rajesh, Adv}
” BAtGM.AfiNE DEVELOPERS rm’. L’I’D.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
AA 4_ THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING
‘ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7/2,
V ‘ ” LANGFGRD ROAD,
BANGALORE – S60 0525,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR. RAJA BAGMANE.
. ‘undee I7 ef”fl1e Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
Act, which was not varied in an appeal
‘ ag; e_ by such order, petitioners have filed this writ
M
Q
2. MR. RAJA BAGMANE,
3/0 13.0. CHANDREGOWDA,
MAJOR,
No.7/2, LANGFORD GARDEN, — _ a. ~ 3
BANGALORE – 560 025. _Ie3EsPOI¢§3jE–‘H__fre§
[By Sri. M. Mahabalaswaragoud, V ” V.
THIS PEI’I’!’I’ION IS FILED UNDER ARfrIc:LE:s 22é._AI~I.D._I22.;z_ OF’
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYIN_Cr~’TO ‘~CALL FOR. THE
RECORDS IN THE CASE A.C.NO,,3/2005 on ‘I’IIEI«’.*:II,E OF THE VI,
ADDYFIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, “BANGALORE AvIsII3V..;3E.,V;?I.EAsIa:I:) ‘
TO GRANT A WRIT OF CER’I’i~ORARI*– ‘OR _’_:sU’e.H OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASI-IIING ANNEXURE – B DT.
30,5.2()0E> PASSED BY THE VI A,D’BETl0NP.L (‘.’.i’I'”&’ CIVIL JUDGE AT
BANGALORE AND 5
THIS PETITION COMING O .N ?50R~.I5}§F;{.I§:§INARY HEARING,
‘B’ GROUP, THIS em, TH§;”cor.JI2T”;vmpe THEVFOLLOWING:
I ‘ I Iegrap-53%
a pending proceedings,
who hae of temporary injunction before
the a:”biI:ra£6r..:Ve11w.7an ‘-afifilication fiieci by the adversary
before the court under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act. It
3
2. Appearing for the petitioners, submission of Sri
Rajesh, learned counsel, is that the arbitrator has
traveiled beyond the terms of reference, in the a
dispute seeking for payment in terms of the
arbitrator, by way of an interixn and
order of injunction to
parting with the 1. subject
matter of disputeeebetweenyittie had virtually
prevented the i their liability
under the Vtespondents and the
no jurisdiction to pass
such an the appellate authority has
not ezgamined qtiestions and has simply dismissed
therefore the matter merits exainination in
even in exercise of jurisdiction under
V V’ _ Artiele the Constitution of India.
_ _’It” is also submitted by the learned counsel that
t._ia1*l)’it.raition proceedings are at an end stage.
M
4
4. Arbitration proceedings themselves are informal
proceedings at the volition of the parties,
principles are not applied very strictly to
decision of the arbitrator. When Si;1ChfiS.. Vofitiieii
main matter, in respect of an’iit1terim”order by? the -. V ”
arbitrator which had beforgvvifthe civil
court acting as appe1late*.i:iutfior3§t}:;,’4 petitioners were
not able to out net 3 fit case
for this COE€i11’iZi” Vine of supervisory
éonstitufion of India, in the
absenceiiof or male: fides attributed to
the arbitJ:’ator.~V%M .
E”se:)j5e’_.’for iiiii er examination of such aspects in
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
A l”?3’*~’ Judge
Sd/-3