- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
GODOLPHINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS DARVESH
INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT SURVEY NO. 1256 AND 1261
RAJPUR ZULASAN ROAD
RAJPUR TALUKA KADI MAHESANA
GUJARAT – 382 715.
HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT
SUITE NO.1011
FIRST FLOOR
PRESTIGE DEJA VU TOWERS
PROMENADE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN
BANGALORE – 560 005
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI ABDUL RASHEED
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. IRFANA NAZEER ADVOCATE)
AND:
UM PROJECTS LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LIMITED
LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
- 2 -
OFFICE AT NO.39, UNITED MANSIONS
FIRST FLOOR, MG ROAD
BANGALORE – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER
SRI P.S. KIRAN KUMAR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIKAS MAHENDRA FOR SMT.ANUPAMA HEBBAR,
ADVOCATE)
---
THIS
COMMERCIAL
APPEAL
IS
FILED
UNDER
SECTION
37(1)(b)
OF
THE
ARBITRATION
AND
CONCILIATION ACT READ WITH RULE 4 OF THE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA ARBITRATION (PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE COURTS) RULES 2001 READ WITH SECTION
13(1)
OF
THE
COMMERCIAL
COURTS,
COMMERCIAL
DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF
HIGH COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
IN COMM.A.A.NO. 247/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT
OF THE LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU (CCH 84) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
This
appeal
by
the
respondent
in
Com.A.A.No.247/2021 is directed against the impugned
order dated 04.03.2022 passed by LXXXIII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Commercial Court)
whereby,
the
Commercial
Court
partly
allowed
the
application filed by the respondent herein under Section 9
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the
said Act of 1996’) and dismissed the interlocutory
- 3 -
application-I.A.No.III filed by the appellant under Section 9
of the said Act of 1996.
2. The material on record discloses that the
respondent entered into a lease deed dated 10.06.2020
with the appellant in relation to the schedule premises. The
appellant had filed A.A.No.127/2021 under Section 9 of the
said Act of 1996 for an interim order / direction restraining
the respondent from interfering with the appellant’s
possession of the schedule property pending disposal of the
Arbitration proceedings, which are said to have been
initiated by the appellant. In the said A.A.No.127/2021, the
appellant filed an application, I.A.No.1 for ad-interim order
of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from
interfering with the appellant’s possession and enjoyment
of the schedule property during the pendency of the
arbitration application. In the said A.A.No.127/2021, the
appellant also filed a memo stating that the appellant was
ready to deposit the agreed rent on a monthly basis to the
tune of 40% of the rent before the trial court.
3. The said A.A.No.127/2021 and the application,
memo etc., filed by the appellant, having been opposed by
the respondent, the trial court passed an order dated
- 4 -
22.12.2021 restraining the respondent from interfering with
the appellant’s possession of the schedule property till the
next date of hearing i.e,. 18.01.2022. In this context, it is
relevant to state that the said interim order was not
extended. Subsequently, under the said order dated
22.12.2021 passed in A.A.No.127/2021, the trial court
permitted the appellant to deposit the rent as prayed for in
the memo dated 21.12.2021.
4.
Meanwhile, the respondent herein filed the
instant COM.A.A.247/2021 before the trial court under
Section 9 of the said Act of 1996 for a direction to the
appellant
herein
to
deposit
outstanding
rent
and
maintenance charges and for other reliefs. In the said
proceedings, in addition to opposing the application filed by
the respondent, the appellant also filed an application
I.A.No.III under Section 9 of the said Act of 1996 to
restrain the respondent from interfering with the appellant’s
possession of the schedule property till disposal of the
arbitration proceedings. The said I.A.No.III having been
opposed by the respondent, the trial court proceeded to
pass the impugned common order allowing COM.A.A.
No.247/2021 filed by the respondent and dismissing
I.A.No.III filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the impugned
- 5 -
common order, the appellant is before this Court by way of
the present appeal.
5.
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the
trial court will indicate that the trial court has directed the
appellant to pay the sums towards occupation of the leased
premises, including the amount towards maintenance along
with applicable GST at the rate mentioned in the lease deed
dated 10.06.2020, from December 2021 till conclusion of
arbitration proceedings or till passing of any interim order
by the Arbitral Tribunal to be constituted, so long as the
appellant herein continued to be in occupation of the
schedule premises; under the impugned order, the
Commercial Court also directed the appellant herein to
adjust
any
amount,
if
already
deposited
in
A.A.No.127/2021, in payment of the sums as per this order
and the payment to be made by the appellant herein as per
the impugned order, would be subject to final order to be
passed in the arbitration proceedings; so also, I.A.No.III
filed by the appellant was dismissed by the trial court.
While doing so, the trial court held as under:-
“10. Admitted
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.