Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J
MR. RAVISH GOWDA – Appellant
Versus
M/S.TECHNOART CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 21390 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Susheela S, Akash V T
For the Respondents: Srinivas S V
High Courts should exercise extreme restraint under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India when challenging interlocutory orders of an Arbitral Tribunal, interfering only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest perversity, as such interference defeats the purpose of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration - Judicial Interference - Interlocutory Orders - High Courts must exercise extreme restraint under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and should not interfere with interlocutory orders of an Arbitral Tribunal unless they suffer from patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest perversity. (Para 11, 12, 13)
(B) Production of Documents - Order XI Rule 14 CPC - Direction to produce original documents is a procedural step intended to facilitate just adjudication and does not constitute an adjudication of substantive rights. (Para 17, 18)
(C) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Remedy - Any grievance arising out of interlocutory orders can be challenged as part of the final award under Section 34 of the Act. (Para 20)
Issues: Whether this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, can interfere with an interlocutory order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing production of documents under Order XI Rule 14 CPC?
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF ARBITRATION CENTER IN AC NO. 509/2022 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 PASSED ON IA FILED UNDER ORDER XI, RULE 14 OF IPC IN AC 509/22 AT ANNEXURE -L AND CONSEQUENTLY TO REJECT THE APPLICATION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed calling in question the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby an application filed by the respondent under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking production of original documents, has been allowed, and the petitioner has been directed to produce the original bills.
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property bearing Site No.19/117 situated at Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru. With an intention to commercially develop the said property, the petitioner invited tenders for construction. The respondent, a contractor, participated in the tender process and was ultimately awarded the contract. Consequently, a construction agreement dated 20.05.2013 came to be executed between the parties. The total contract value was fixed at Rs.8,11,28,371/- inclusive of statutory components such as ESI, PF, VAT and service tax, but exclusive of reinforcement steel.
It is the case of the petitioner that though the construction work commenced pursuant to the agreement, the execution was inordinately delayed and extended up to the year 2015. The petitioner alleges that the work carried out by the respondent was not in conformity with contractual standards and was unsatisfactory. During the course of execution, running account (RA) bills were periodically generated.
Disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause contained in the agreement and initiated arbitral proceedings, claiming a sum of Rs.2,40,78,446/- from the petitioner. The petitioner entered appearance before the Arbitral Tribunal and filed its statement of objections resisting the claim.
The arbitral proceedings have progressed to the stage of evidence. At this juncture, the respondent/claimant filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC seeking production of original bills from the petitioner. The petitioner resisted the said application contending that the originals are in fact in the custody of the respondent and that the documents already marked, particularly Ex.P-55, sufficiently represent the bills relied upon by the claimant.
The learned Arbitrator, upon consideration of the rival contentions, allowed the application and directed the petitioner to produce the original bills. Being aggrieved by the said interlocutory order, the petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as the Arbitrator has failed to appreciate that the original bills are admittedly in the custody of the respondent. He would further contend that Ex.P-55, which has already been marked in evidence, represents the relevant bills and has been acted upon by both parties. It is also contended that the oral evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the respondent was in possession of the original documents.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the settled principles governing interference by High Courts in arbitral proceedings. He would contend that the impugned order is purely interlocutory in nature and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference.
Having heard learned counsel on both sides, the sole point that arises for consideration is:
