SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 1064

R.BANUMATHI, A.S.BOPANNA
Canara Nidhi Limited – Appellant
Versus
M. Shashikala – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):S.N. Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):E.R. Sumathy, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeking to set aside the award, whether the parties can adduce evidence to prove the specified grounds in sub-section (2) to Section 34 of the Act, is the question falling for consideration in these appeals.

3. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 12.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition Nos. 18374-18375 of 2010 (GM-RES) in and by which the High Court set aside the order passed by the District Judge and directed the District Judge to “recast the issues” and permit respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to file affidavits of their witnesses and also permitting cross-examination of the witnesses.

4. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under:-

The appellant is the financial institution and the appellant advanced a loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- to respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 to 8 were the guarantors in respect of such loan. The loan was secured by a mortgage with deposit of title deeds and respondent No. 1 is also said to have executed a demand promissory note for repayment of the loan. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top