IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 987/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
THE UNION OF INDIA BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY NO.18, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU-560046 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SANJAY GOWDA N S, ADVOCATE) AND:
M/S EAGLE MPCC (JV) NO.16, SCS COMPLEX SOUTH CAR STREET NAMAKKAL DISTRICT TIRUCHENGODU-637211(TAMIL NADU) BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SRI U R SUBRAMANYAM ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K S HARISH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.39483/2016 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTIALLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT What was challenged before the learned Single Judge was the order dated 30th June 2016 passed by the learned District Judge on the application made by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The issue of maintainability of the appeal is raised by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent on the basis of the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of TAMMANNA AND OTHERS vs RENUKA AND OTHERS in W.A.No.1585/2007 decided on 13th March 2009.
3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the District Judge who exercised the power did not act as a Civil Court and what was invoked before the learned Single Judge was the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. We have perused the writ petition. In the title, no doubt that there is a reference to both Articles 226 and 227 in the writ petition. But from the prayers made in the petition, we find that none of the writs which are covered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were prayed for and the prayer is only for setting aside the order of the learned District Judge. Therefore, in our view, the appellant had invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. In view of the law laid down by the Larger Bench in the case of TAMMANNA (supra), the appeal is not maintainable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.
6. Only on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable, we dismiss the same.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv