1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

AND

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

COMMERCIAL APPEAL No.135 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

M/S.AXIS BANK LTD.,

AXIS HOUSE, C-2, WADIA

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE

PANDURANG BUDHKAR MARG

WORLI, MUMBAI – 400 025

REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER

MR.CHENGAPPA P.T

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

AXIS BANK LIMITED

BASAVANAGUDI BRANCH

NO.41, SUBHASHRI PRIDE

SOUTH END ROAD

BASAVANAGUDI

BENGALURU -560 004

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT

CORPORATION LIMITED (BMTC)

CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD

SHANTHINAGAR

BENGALURU – 560 027

2

REPRESENTED BY ITS

MANAGING DIRECTOR

2.

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER (O)

PROJECT MANAGER

BENGALURU METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC)

CENTRAL OFFICES

K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR

BENGALURU – 560 027

3.

THE DIRECTOR (FINANCE)

FA, CO, BRANDED SMART CARD PROJECT

BENGALURU METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC)

CENTRAL OFFICES

K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR

BENGALURU – 560 027

…. RESPONDENTS

*****

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13

1(A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT R/W SECTION 37(1)(B)

OF THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2021 IN COM.AA.

NO.6/2020 PASSED BY LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND

SESSSIONS

JUDGE

AT

BENGALURU

AT

ANNEXURE-A

DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER

SECTION 94 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACAT,

1996 AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

ARAVIND KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Heard

Sri

Unnikrsihnan

M.,

learned

counsel

appearing for appellant. Perused the records.

3

2. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘Arbitration Act’) is

filed

by

the

plaintiff

challenging

the

order

dated

30.06.2021 passed in Com.AA.No.6/2020 whereunder

petition filed under Section 9(ii)(c)(d)(e) of the Arbitration

Act came to be dismissed. Prayer which came to be sought

for by the appellant before the Court below in the petition

filed for grant of interim measures reads:

“a) To issue an ad interim order of injunction

restraining

the

Respondents

from

appointing any financial institution or any

Service Provider for Smart Card Based

Fare Collection System Project till an

Arbitrator is appointed to adjudicate the

disputes between the parties.

b)

To

direct

the

Respondents

for

the

continuation of the use of Smart Cards by

the customers of the Petitioner and since

the Agreement, Dated:28.02.2014 has not

been

terminated

in

terms

of

the

procedures as agreed between the parties

in the same.

4

c) To direct the Respondents to maintain /

keep the Bank Guarantee amount of Rs.

75 Lakhs in a Fixed Deposit in IndusInd

Bank Trade Finance Department or any

other Nationalised bank in order to protect

the interest of the Petitioner till the

disposal of the Arbitral Proceedings.”

3.

On

service

of

notice

before

trial

Court,

respondents appeared and filed detailed statement of

objections vide Annexure-W denying averments made in

the petition except to the extent expressly admitted

thereunder. As noticed hereinabove, learned trial Judge

has considered rival contentions and by impugned order

dismissed the application. Hence, this appeal.

4. Appellant is a Company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on business of Banking

and having several branches across the country including

one at Bengaluru. The first respondent floated a tender in

March, 2013 calling upon the proposed bidders to submit

their bids in order to set up and implement Intelligent

5

Transport System and to facilitate the collection of