Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIBHU BAKHRU, C.J., C M JOSHI
Godolphine India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Um Projects LLP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of lease agreement and obligations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 2. lessee's allegations of lessor's breach. (Para 4 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 30) |
| 3. court's findings on lease termination. (Para 46 , 49 , 50) |
| 4. rejection of lessee's application under section 34. (Para 57 , 58 , 89) |
| 5. final judgment and order. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95) |
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ.
INTRODUCTION
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 (1)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act], impugning the judgment dated 07.02.2025 [impugned judgment] passed by the learned Commercial Court in Com.A.P.No.155/2023 captioned ''Godolphine India Private Limited v. UM Projects LLP and another". The appellant [hereafter also referred to as 'the lessee'] had filed the said application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 09.10.2023 ['impugned award'] rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a sole arbitrator ['Arbitral Tribunal'].
2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes arising between the parties in connection with the lease of premises measuring 30,350 square feet, which is a part of the property
The court affirmed that an arbitral award can only be set aside for patent illegality, emphasizing that lessor maintained obligations under the lease despite lessee's claims. Termination due to non-p....
The court reaffirmed that an arbitrator's award is not subject to re-evaluation for evidence sufficiency under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the limits of judicial i....
The court upheld the Arbitral Award, emphasizing limited grounds for interference and confirming the validity of the Sole Arbitrator's findings regarding the Lease Deed.
The court upheld the Arbitral Award, affirming that the Sole Arbitrator's findings were plausible and did not warrant judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The liability of the appellant to pay outstanding rent and maintenance charges was not restricted by a previous order, and the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199....
Lessee cannot withhold possession post-termination for non-refund of security deposit; COVID-19 pandemic effects justify suspension of rent obligations for specified duration.
Limited interference with arbitral awards under S.34/37 of A&C Act; partial set-aside for patent illegality in severable claims.
The determination of rent increases under the Bombay Rent Act cannot be subjected to arbitration and must be handled by designated courts.
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
