IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.47895/2017 & WRIT PETITION NO.47945/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Mr. H.J. Siwani Aged about 57 years S/o late Mr. J.K.Siwani Having his Office at H.M.Geneva House, No.14, Cunnigham Road, Bengaluru-560 052.
2. Mr. M.J. Siwani Aged about 55 years S/o late Mr. J.K.Siwani Having his Office at H.M.Geneva House, No.14, Cunnigham Road, Bengaluru-560 052. …Petitioners (By Sri Uday Holla, Senior Counsel for Sri Abhinav R., Adv.) AND:
Sri P.Dayanand Pai Aged about 70 years S/o late Sri Narasimha Pai Having Office at No.10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex Ground Floor, Palace Road, Bengaluru-560 052. …Respondent These Writ Petition are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the entire proceedings in A.A.378/2017 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, vide Annexure-L to the Writ Petition.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking that the entire proceedings in AA No.378/2017 pending on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge be quashed.
2. The respondent herein has filed the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for brevity) before the Court below. The petitioners herein contend that keeping in view the clause as contained in the agreement, the application of the present nature before the court below would not be maintainable since according to the petitioners, the procedure of conciliation before seeking arbitration is to be exhausted.
3. The learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners in that view would contend that when in such circumstance, the respondent has not adhered to the clause as contained in the agreement, the Court below without taking note of these aspects cannot consider the application filed under Section 9 of the Act.
4. Though such a contention is put-forth by the learned Senior Counsel, I am of the opinion that petitions of the present nature are premature. In any event, the petitioners herein who are the respondents before the Court below in their objection to the application filed before the Court below could raise such contention. If such contention is raised, certainly the Court below would take note of the same. Needless to mention, the court below before considering other aspects of the matter may take note of the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners, consider the same in accordance with the law and take a decision on the same before proceeding to other aspects of the matter.
In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE nv