IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.24637 OF 2019 C/W WRIT PETITION NOs.23917 OF 2019 & 25548-564/2019 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.24637 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT LTD THE HUB #8/2 & 9 AMBALIPURA BELLANDUR SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE KOMALA K REDDY D/O J V K REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS PETITIONER (By MR. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SMT. ANUPAMA BORDOLOI, ADV.) AND:
BALDEV BISHNOI MAJOR, C-09 LAKSHMI PENTHOUSE MICO LAYOUT GARVENBHIPALYA KARNATAKA BENGALURU PIN 560 068.
… RESPONDENT (By MR. VIKAS MAHENDRE ON BEHALF OF SMT. ANUPAMA G HEBBAR, ADV.) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09TH MAY 2019 PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATORY OFFICER, RERA BANGALORE, KARNATAKA WHREBY THE LEARNED ADJUDICATORY OFFICER RERA SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 8(1) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILATION AMENDMENT ACT 2015 PASSED IN CMP 171 202/0000289 (ANNEXURE-A); AND ETC.
WRIT PETITION NOs.23917 OF 2019 & 25548-564/2019 BETWEEN:
M/S SJR PRIME CORPORATION PRIVATED LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT OF 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THE HUB GROUND FLOOR SY NO 8/2 SARJAPUR ROAD AMBALIPURA VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE – 560102 REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL HEAD MS. KOMALA K REDDY (By Mr. AJESH KUMAR S, ADV.) AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK CSI BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 027 2. THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK CSI BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 027 3. VIVEK KUMAR PODDAR S/O SITARAM PODDAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT SHRI SAI APT #11 AKSHARA LAYOUT RAYASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 100 … PETITIONER (By Mr. VIKAS MAHENDRE ON BEHALF OF Mr. PRASHANTH M V, ADVS. FOR R1 & R2 ) … RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD: 9.5.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 ADJUDICATING OFFICER AT ANNEXURE-A AND C AND DIRECT THE R-2 AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT (ANNEXURE-F TO F17) WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON THE SUBJECT, AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior counsel along with Smt.Anuparna Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vikas Mahinder, learned counsel on behalf of Smt.Anupama G.Hebbar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Adjudicatory Officer, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bengaluru by which the Adjudicatory Officer has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), as amended by Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petitions briefly stated are that the petitioner is a builder who has entered into a construction agreement and an agreement to sale with the respondent for purchase of the plot on 12.02.2014. Sometime in the year 2019, the respondent filed a complaint before the RERA claiming compensation on account of delay in handing over the project. The petitioner, thereupon filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Act for referring the matter to an arbitrator on the ground that the agreements entered into between the parties contains an arbitration clause. The Adjudicatory Officer, by the impugned order dated 09.05.2019, has rejected the aforesaid application.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid preliminary objection, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that he be granted reasonable time to file an appeal as envisaged under Section 37(1)(a) of the Act and till then, the protection which was granted by this Court vide interim order be continued. The aforesaid prayer has not been fairly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the fact that against the impugned order, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing an appeal, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these petitions with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today along with an application for stay. In case the petitioner files an appeal as aforesaid, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Needless to state that till the application for stay filed by the petitioner is considered by the Appellate Court, interim order granted by a Bench of this Court, if any, shall continue. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV