1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANGALORE____
DATED THIS on THE 25TH DAY 01:' JUNE mes' Q
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUS'TICE_;V.G,SAB§iAH:fi'»
AND
THE H()N'BLE MR. JUSTICi3§"'--~$.N. 'sII'I'y'.¢III1II§;vgI(A:IA
lVI.F.A. 1~§o.1o89%4[m7_I(AA)'* I ~ « T. %
BETWEEN .. _ I
M/s. R N SHETTY Al§§D.CO__VJ:V I ..
WITH SUNWAY consrgtigrlopi BIID',
MALAYSIA»
HAVING; ITS OFF_!CE'ATI -MURUDESHWAR
BHAVAN', N'O.604/ I3,{}C}KUL 'ROAD,
I-IUBLI, RERBY DIRECIITGR
SRI.NAVEEN«._R.SHE"1"E"{_. " ..APPELLAN'I'.
;VI{~fiHIIsIIIIIIRArI AE)V., I
_'..; ....,_..
.II§ATIoNAL' HIGHWAY
"~ALtTH'QRrrY OF INDIA
_ G-.5'ag 6,SE)C'I'OR~--10,DWARKA,
V' NEW DELI-11375,
», " 'REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
" NATIONAL HIGHWAY AU'I'HOR1'I'Y OF INDIA
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
2ND CROSS, SATHUR COLONY,
VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD580 004,
2
RERBY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR.
RESPONDENTIS _
[Sri Udaya I-iolla, senior counsel for M] s.: ~ .9
00., ADVs., )
MFA FILED U10. 3711) (>¥’AA”ARBF§?RAT§ Q§!_V:AI§D
CONCILIATION ACT, AGA1NsrVTHE»%10_Ri3§iR
PASSED IN ARBITRATION AP:=>j;1c,ATx(m . No._ep/ by
THE FILE OF THE V %P;.. 1;>~i’s:r’,}’%{‘;’Ju;;)GE,” “DHARwAD,
DISMISSING THE APPI.uIflC1!S,fi’IC)!?¥.§’1″VI3*iL:$I;5: 9(ii)(b) OF
THE ARBI’PRAT1{) N_. _ANjD ‘ “Cl3::N(::ILiATION;«V’$i&CT, FOR THE
GRAN1′ £)F’–REl;IiE3F?g’- : = ‘
on for fine} hearing this day,
the following;
JTHEIIT
appeal is posted for orders on I.A.IH/07 for
vAa;-at’i:1g stay order anci the matter is taken up for final
” ‘ g with the consent of the learned counsel appcarm g
for the parties.
W
4
Rs.8,41,76,509**–‘-‘1OPs., has been withhcm by}
respondents on the grouzxd that the payment ”
amount has been aimady made by k u
not payable to the appellant. In viéw file :7-1
agvcement, the matter was to’ Athfit”
Board and the Disputes: of
the appellant and at ‘fif§§:;.:’»’rcsjpondcnts, the
matter is rcfcrredstg before the
Arbitrator _ was fiicd under
Section 9 of ‘V order as referred to
above. Thai: Icjgcctcd by the District
Judge, Dhamag,’ by’ sag; §ia£:e:1″’21.o3.2oo7 and hem’ g
aggrieved fay Lthc ‘s,a. m’ A’ ‘c, ‘ th i;s Qappcal is pmfczrmd by the
A.fhiti*a1_:ion No.6] 2007 .
heard the learned counsel appcann.g’
.. .f.j’.1f§r___t33c appcflgét and the learned senior counsel appearing
flfor mfifiandenm.
5. It is clear fmm a perusal of the terms of the
Eagrecmcnt as also the matcriai on record that the dispute is
regarding recovery of the amount of Rs.8,41,76,509=1OPs.,
UR}-
6
Cranes), which would also include interest demanded bythe
respondents. Learned senior counsel appearing A’
respondents fairly and rightly submitted ‘
appellant fumishes bank g11a1*antee…fo_1f Ru
(Rupees Nine Cmres), the interest
suficiently safeguarded. Having
of the learned counsel appeazingH_l:f0r:_tl1e View
of the fact that a prime ease’ made out and
the matter is pending befsre. the resolution of
the dispute, for ganting
olden 9 of the Act, restraining the
respondents’ the amount sought to be
mcoVc:’$d: ‘V “the amount already recovered
the e¢.eee’eeee 22.03.2007 and letter dated
the pendency of the proceeding befoxe
the and accoxtim gly, we pass the followm g
on The “appeal is allowed. The outer dated 21.03.2007
peeeeei by the Prl. District Judge, Dharwad, in Arbitration
Vt ~A’;lpIicafion No.6] 2007 is set aside and Arbitxation
Vepplieeeioe No.6[2007 is allowed in part and the
\9«/3
‘. *suL~.a
7
respondents as restrained from It-covcrixzg any ~u
amount pursuant to the notice dated 22.03.2003? ‘
dated 02.04.2007 dating the pcndrmcy’ K ”
before the Arbitrator subject to tfixf:
bank guarantee for Rs.9,OO,O{V), 0{}V0/4*’
only), which shall be kgpt before
the Arbitrator is conclficfiéd. A shall be
furnished Within two : *
Sd/-~
Judge
Sd/-3
Iudcjé’