IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

Dated this the 19^th day of November 2019

Before

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

Writ Petition No.108299 of 2015 &

W.P. No.108550 of 2015 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

1.

M/S ASHA TARA LABORATORIES

SILPA COMPLEX,

BEACH ROAD, KULAI, MANGALOORU

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM

R/BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER

SRI K. NIRANJAN SHETTY

B. SARVOTTAM SHETTY

AGE: 50 YEARS,

PRESENTLY R/O.NO. 71, 7^TH CROSS,

MAHALAXMI LAYOUT FURTHER EXTENSION,

BENGALURU-26.

2.

SRI K. NIRNJAN SHETTY

B. SARVOTTAM SHETTY

AGE: 50 YEARS,

EARLIER R/O. KENJUR HOUSE,

VIA KOKKARNE,

TQ & DIST: UDUPI,

PRESENTLY R/O.NO. 71, 7^TH CROSS,

MAHALAXMI LAYOUT FURTHER EXTENSION,

BENGALURU-26.

3.

SMT ASHA SHETTY

W/O. NIRANJAN SHETTY

AGE: 43 YEARS, R/O. KENJUR HOUSE,

POST: KENJUR, VIA KOKKARNE,

2

TQ & DIST: UDUPI,

NOW RESIDING AT NO. 71, 7^TH CROSS,

MAHALAXMI LAYOUT FURTHER EXTENSION,

BENGALURU-26.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

A N D

M/S TARA AGENCIES

SHOP NO. 23/27, II FLOOR

KATHARIA TRADE CENTRE, KOPPIKAR ROAD,

HUBBALLI

REPREENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR

SRI MAQBOOL AHMED

S/O. ABDUL REHMAN MAKANDAR,

AGE: 47 YEARS, R/O.HUBBALLI.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V.G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH

THE

ORDER

DATED

25.09.2013,

PASSED

IN

O.S.NO.332/2013, BY THE COURT OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE

(JR.DN), HUBBALLI, AT HUBBALLI, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS

BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXUER-A AND ALSO THE

ORDER DATED 13.04.2015, PASSED ON I.A.NO.V IN

O.S.NO.332/2013, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL.CIVIL

JUDGE (JR.DN), HUBBALLI, AT HUBBALLI, THE COPY OF

WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-B.

THESE

WRIT

PETITIONS

COMING

ON

FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THIS

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

3

ORDER

Sri.

J.S.

Shetty,

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners.

2.

Sri. V.G. Bhat, learned counsel for the

respondent.

3.

Petitions are admitted for hearing. With the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the

same are heard finally.

4.

In these petitions under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia have

assailed the validity of the order dated 25.09.2013 by

the Trial Court has held that it has territorial

jurisdiction to try the suit and the order dated

13.04.2015 by which the prayer of the petitioners to

hear the issue with regard to suit being barred by

limitation as a preliminary issue has been rejected.

4

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties

at length and have perused the record. From the

perusal of the record, it is evident that in the

agreement

executed

between

the

parties

dated

26.02.2007, there is an arbitration clause namely

Clause No.34 which reads as under:

“34. In the case of any dispute or

difference of opinion between the parties

hereto, the matter shall be referred to

arbitration and accordingly the provisions

contained in the Indian Arbitration Act shall

apply.”

6.

In view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court is duty bound to refer

the dispute to the arbitration. However, instead of

referring the dispute to the arbitration in view of the

agreement between the parties, the Trial court has

held that it has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

The

impugned

order,

therefore,

suffers

from

jurisdictional infirmity as well as an error apparent on

5

the face of the record and it is accordingly quashed.

The Trial Court is directed to refer the dispute between

the parties in view of Clause 34 of the agreement read

with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kms