IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.569 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
AASTHA GULHATI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT 31/21, DLF, PHASE 3 GURGOAN HARYANA-122002.
ALSO AT:
M-83, 9TH B MAIN JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560075.
(BY SRI A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADV.) AND:
SAHIBA SINGH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS W/O SUDEEP BHATTARCHARYA C 2, LISHA VISTARA CHERRY LANE, CHERRY CROSS GREEN GLENN LAYOUT BELLANDUR BENGALURU-560103.
(BY SRI SUNIL KUMAR H, ADV. FOR C/R) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2018 ON IA VIDE ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF A.S.NO.94/2018 IN THE COURT OF XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-32) AS BAD AND CONTRARY TO POSITION OF LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr.A.Mahesh Chowdhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sunil Kumar H., learned Counsel for the respondent.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the trial Court, by which, the application filed by the respondent herein for stay of execution of the award has been allowed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
4. The trial Court allowed the application with the reasons as contained in paragraph 11 which reads as under:
“11. The Applicant-Plaintiff in his affidavit annexed to the application stated on oath that, absolutely there was no any arbitration clause in the agreement of dissolution of partnership. The Applicant-Plaintiff seeking staying of the execution of the award passed by invoking the provisions of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 36 deals with enforcement of the award passed. Therefore, the question arises as to maintainability of the application. But, it is the principle of law that mere wrong quotation of provision of law to an application is not a ground to reject the prayer made therein. The respondent can seek the enforcement of the award passed if he succeeded in this suit after full fledged trial. At this stage, to meet the ends of justice, if the award under challenge is stayed, there will be no any loss or hardship to the respondent. On the other hand, if the enforcement of award is not stayed, there is a chance of causing irreparable loss and injustice to the Applicant-Plaintiff. With these observations, this court by exercising its inherent power to meet the ends of justice holds that, application needs to be allowed. Accordingly, my answer to the point No.1 is in affirmative.”
5. It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme court in ‘VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK’, 2010 (3) SCC 732, reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process.
6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the trial Court has failed to assign valid and cogent reasons for granting stay in favour of the respondent. The impugned order is cryptic and has been passed in cavalier manner which suffers vice of non- application of mind. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the trial Court is directed to consider the application after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* ct:bms