IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION No.31674 OF 2019 C/w WRIT PETITION No.31673 OF 2019 (GM-RES) IN WP NO.31674 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
Mr. C.C. Kondaiah, S/o. late Chinnaiah, Aged about 68 years, Class-I Contractor (PWD & KUWS & DB), Residing at No.793, 9th Cross, Vijayanagar, 4th Stage, First Phase, Mysuru – 570 017. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Maralidhar H.M., Advocate) AND:
Mysuru City Corporation, Sayyaji Rao Road, Chamarajapura, Mysuru – 570 024, Represented by Its Commissioner. ... Respondent (By Smt. Geethadevi M. Papanna, Advocate) This Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 23.07.2019 vide Annexure-A passed by the Tribunal in Arbitration case No.194/2018 on I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner under Section 26 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, consequently allow the application.
IN WP NO.31673 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
Mr. C.C. Kondaiah, S/o. late Chinnaiah, Aged about 68 years, Class-I Contractor (PWD & KUWS & DB), Residing at No.793, 9th Cross, Vijayanagar, 4th Stage, First Phase, Mysuru – 570 017. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Maralidhar H.M., Advocate) AND:
Mysuru City Corporation, Sayyaji Rao Road, Chamarajapura, Mysuru – 570 024, Represented by Its Commissioner. ... Respondent (By Smt. Geethadevi M. Papanna, Advocate) This Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 25.07.2019 vide Annexure-A passed by LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court) Bengaluru, in Commercial Arbitration Application No.86/2019 on I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner under Section 29-A (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 consequently allow the application.
These Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, Narayana Swamy J., made the following:
ORDER Interim order passed by the District and Sessions Judge was the subject matter in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that during the pendency of these cases, award has been passed on 08.08.2019. Hence, writ petitions become infructuous.
3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent and also the facts and circumstances that when the award itself is passed, the question of keeping these petitions pending does not arise.
Accordingly, both the petitions stand dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE BVK SD/- JUDGE