- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

COMAP NO.46 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. M/S. MVR GAS

SY. NO.400

SARJAJPURA-ATTIBELE MAIN ROAD

SARJAPURA HOBLI

BANGALORE - 560 125

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

SHRI B.V.SADANAND

2. SHRI B.V.SADANAND

S/O SHRI VENKATA SWAMY REDDY

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

NO.801, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK

KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE - 560 004

3. SMT. S.L.MANJULA

W/O SHRI B.V.SADANAND

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

NO.801, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK

KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE - 560 004

... APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI G.S.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED

ONE INDIA BULLS CENTRE

TOWER I, 18^TH FLOOR

JUPITOR MILL COMPOUND

#841, SENAPATHI BAPATH MARG

ELPHINSTAN ROAD

- 2 -

MUMBAI - 400 013

REPRESENTED BY ITS

AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

SHRI AKASH N A

... RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI B.C.AVINASH, ADVOCATE )

---

THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(A) OF THE

COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURT (CCH 84) OF I.A.

NO.1 IN COM.AA NO.7/2021 DATED 29.01.2021 BY ALLOWING

THE ABOVE APPEAL.

THIS COMAP COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH VIDEO

CONFERENCING

THIS

DAY,

CHIEF

JUSTICE

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Heard

the

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

appellants.

2.

The appellants are the respondents in a petition filed

by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the said Act of

1996"). In the petition filed under Section 9 of the said Act

of 1996, the respondent has contended that the appellants

have not repaid the loan granted to them to the extent of

Rs.99,75,465/- as on 14^th July 2020. It is stated in the

petition that the arbitration clause has been already

invoked by the respondent.

- 3 -

3.

In the said petition under Section 9 of the said Act of

1996, I.A No.1 for interim relief was filed by the respondent

seeking interim custody of the schedule plant and

machineries in possession of the appellants. The impugned

order is an exparte ad interim order directing the appellants

to furnish a security for payment of Rs.99,75,465/- within a

period of fifteen days, failing which the respondent shall be

permitted to take interim custody of the machineries

mentioned in the petition schedule from the appellants, if

necessary, with the help of jurisdictional police and to keep

the same in its safe custody till the next date.

4.

An order was passed by this Court on 8^th March 2021

staying the order passed by the Commercial Court

permitting the respondent to take interim custody subject

to various conditions including a condition of depositing

Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 22^nd March 2021. The amount

was not deposited. Therefore, the order of stay dated 8^th

March 2021 stands vacated.

5.

The impugned order is an exparte ad-interim order

passed pending the final disposal of I.A No.1 filed in the

petition under Section 9 of the said Act of 1996. Hence, the

appellants can file a statement of objections to I.A No.1 and

- 4 -

apply for vacating the exparte order. If the appellants

succeed and I.A No.1 is rejected by the Commercial Court,

the action of restitution may follow.

6.

Therefore, it is not necessary, at this stage, to

interfere with the exparte ad-interim order passed by the

Commercial Court.

7.

The appeal is disposed of subject to the observations

made above.

8.

All the contentions of the parties on merits of the

pending proceedings are kept open.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AHB