IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 3420 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

MR. V. S. SITARAM SON OF MR V R SUBRAMANIAM AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.61, PRESTIGE OZONE WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 066 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.C.K.NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

INNOVATIVE FOODS LIMITED Digitally HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT signed by SUVARNA T CHAKOLAS HABITAT A BLOCK Location:

HIGH COUR T I C THEVARA FERRY ROAD, OF KARNATAKA COCHIN KERALA - 682 013 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.BIBH V.KITTUR, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI.N.K.DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN A.A.NO.92/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-61)SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.02.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-61) IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN A.A.NO.92/2020 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in A.A.No.92/2020 dated

04.02.2021 passed by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-61), the petitioner/applicant is before this Court.

2. The facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the petitioner was the managing director and Chief Executive Officer of the respondent/company. Disputes arose over payments due to the petitioner upon his termination from service. Upon the arbitral tribunal being constituted, the petitioner filed his claim statement on 11.02.2019. The respondent filed its statement of objections on 21.03.2019. Issues were framed on 28.03.2019. Additional issues were framed at the request of the respondent on 26.04.2019. Amended statement of objections filed by the respondent on 11.06.2019 pursuant to an amendment application filed by it. It is stated that upon the pleadings being completed in the arbitration, a detailed trial ensued. The respondent has sought to delay the proceedings and also sought several adjournments during the proceedings. In terms of Section 29-A (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an extension of six months was initially sought on 12.12.2019 by the mutual consent of the parties, the time period to pass the award was extended by a period of six months.

3. The petitioner and the respondent had addressed their arguments in full in March 2020. The matter was set down for reply arguments. At that point of time, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of India announced a nation-wide lockdown from 23.03.2020. The efforts made by the petitioner to have the matter hear at the earliest went futile as the Karnataka Arbitration Centre was also not taking up matters for hearing. It is stated that during that time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the petition is Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 by way of an order dated 23.03.2020 directed that the period of limitation in all proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders to be passed by it in the proceedings. Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not prescribe a period of limitation, but fixes a time to do certain acts i.e., making an arbitral award within a prescribed time. It is stated that upon the reopening of the Karnataka Arbitration Centre on 30.07.2020, the parties addressed their reply arguments and the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to reserve the matter for passing of the award.

4. It is stated that in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is sufficient time remaining to pass the award. The Tribunal granted permissi