Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.V.ANJARIA, K.V.ARAVIND
Maverick Motors LLP, Represented By Its Designated Partner, Mr. Pathi Dinesh Bhagawath – Appellant
Versus
Rohit Murthy, S/o. Mr. Krishnamurthy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and procedural background of the case (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding adherence to arbitration protocols (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court's reasoning on section 9 and rule 9(4) (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. clarification of legal terms in arbitration context (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. result and order confirming interim relief (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
K.V. ARAVIND, J.
Heard learned advocates Mr. Hemanth Rao and Mr. R. Puneeth for learned advocate Mr. H.S. Rukkoji Rao for the appellant and learned Senior Advocate Mr. B.C. Thiruvengadam assisted by learned advocate Mr. B.T. Manik for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed under Section 13(1)(A) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2016, read with Section 37 (1)(B) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), assailing the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in Com.A.A.No.17 of 2024 by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru.
3. The appellants filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with Section 9 of the Act seeking injunctive relief against the respondent. By order dated 20.01.2024, the Commercial Court granted an exparte ad interim order rest
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
