IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ COMAP NO.6 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
MR. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O NATARAJU RESIDING AT NO.70 VAGDEVI LAYOUT, 3RD CROSS MUNEKOLALU VILLAGE MARATHAHALLI POST BENGALURU - 560037.
(BY SHRI M.S. HAARINATH, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. C. KALAIVANNAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O CHENNAIYAN, RESIDING AT NO.51, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE HOSAPALYA, BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU 560068 2. MR. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH 3. MRS. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O MAHADEVA ... APPELLANT 4. MISS. GANGOTHRI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS D/O MAHADEVA 5. MISS. GAGANOTHRI AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS D/O MAHADEVA 5TH RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER MRS. MANJULA, (RESPONDENT-3) 6. MR. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH 7. MRS. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O NAGARAJU 8. MRS. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS D/O NAGARAJU 9. MR. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O NAGARAJU 10. MRS. ANITHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O LATE MANJUNATHA 11. MISS. HARSHITHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS D/O LATE MANJUNATHA 12. MASTER HARISH AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS S/O LATE MANJUNATHA RESPONDENTS 11 & 12 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER MRS. ANITHA (RESPONDENT-10) 13. MR. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O SIDDEGOWDA 14. MRS. HEMALATHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O S.NAGARAJU 15. MISS. YASHASVINI N., AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS D/O S.NAGARAJU 16. MISS. MONISHA.N AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS D/O S.NAGARAJU, RESPONDENTS 15 & 16 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER MRS. HEMALATHA (RESPONDENT-14) RESPONDENTS 2 TO 16 ARE RESIDING AT KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560068 17. MR. N. SURESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O NAGARAJU RESIDING AT NO.39/1 ROYAL PLACID LAYOUT 80 FEET ROAD, HARALUR HSR LAYOUT POST BENGALURU - 560102 18. MR. MUNNANGI VENKATARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O BRAHMA REDDY 19. MRS. N.VANAJARANI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O MUNNANGI VENKATARAMA REDDY RESPONDENTS 18 & 19 ARE RESIDING AT NO.23, DOOR NO.4, 1ST FLOOR NAIDU LAYOUT MAIN ROAD SHANTHIPURA ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 560099 ... RESPONDENTS (SHRI K.J. JAGADEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI G. PAPI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2-19: NOTICE DISPENSED) ---
THIS COMAP / COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2019 PASSED BY THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-83) BENGALURU CITY IN COM.A.A.NO.406/2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 9 OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL, THEREBY DISMISSING COM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.406/2018 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEAL, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the memo dated 14th August 2019 in which the appellant has stated that he is not claiming any relief against the second to nineteenth respondents. He has prayed for dispensation of service of notice to them.
2. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent have tendered a petition under Rule III Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 recording the settlement between the appellant and the first respondent and seeking disposal of the appeal in terms of the compromise recorded in the said petition. The petition tendered is signed by the appellant as well as the first respondent and their respective advocates. It bears verification signed by both the appellant and the first respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the demand drafts mentioned in paragraph 5 of the petition tended today. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:
(i) In view of the prayer made by the appellant, service of notice to the second to nineteenth respondents is dispensed with. Hence, the order passed in this appeal will not bind and affect the said respondents;
(ii) The appeal is disposed of in terms of the settlement between the appellant and the first respondent recorded in the petition tendered today;
(iii) In view of what is provided in paragraph 10 of the petition, the impugned order dated 12th April 2019 is set aside and is substituted by an order in terms of the compromise recorded in the petition.
(iv) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB