H.N.M. Prasad Vs. Vasundara Srinivasan and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1177742
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnJul-15-2015
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 28547 of 2015 (GM-CPC)
JudgeA.V. CHANDRASHEKARA
AppellantH.N.M. Prasad
RespondentVasundara Srinivasan and Another
Excerpt:
(prayer: this w.p. is filed under article 227 of the constitution of india praying to quash the initiation of proceedings and issuance of summons produced at annx-e arraing the petitioner as defendant no.2 in arbitration suit no.0000062/2015 on the file of city civil and sessions judge (cch-45) at bengaluru and etc.) 1. heard the learned counsel for the parties. with their consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. sri.h.n.m.prasad a practicing advocate of bangalore city is the petitioner in the present case. he has passed an award in terms of the provisions of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 on 10.3.2015 relating to a case between vasundhara srinivasan and m/s.keppel puruvankara developers pvt. ltd. the said award passed is challenged respondent no.1 vasundhara srinivasan before the city civil court bangalore in arbitration suit i.e.., a.s.no.62/2015 in terms of section 34 of arbitration and conciliation making m/s.keppel puruvankara developers pvt. ltd. as defendant no. and sri.h.n.n.prasad, arbitrator as defendant no.2. 3. learned judge of the arbitration court has issued summons directing sri.h.n.n.prasad, the petitioner herein to appear before him on 1.8.2015 in order to show cause against the application filed under section 34 of arbitration and conciliation act, lest the application would be heard and deterined ex- parte. being aggrieved by the said summons issued by the city civil court, present petition is filed under article 227 of constitution of india. ƒ 4. sri. h.n. n.prasad submits that though rule 4(c) of high court of karnataka arbitration (proceedings before the courts) rules 2001 mandates that in a petition filed under section 34 of arbitration and conciliation act to make an arbitrator as party, no summons could be issued is his arguments. he has relied upon a decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of union of india v. m/s.orient engg. and commercial co. ltd. and another (1978 (1) scc 10). while dealing under section 17 of arbitration act, 1940 and order 16 rule 1 of cpc, the hon'ble apex court has held that arbitrator may be called as witness in respect of his award and he cannot however be summoned to explain as to how he has arrived at his award. the same analogy of principles of hon'ble apex court is equally applicable to the present act also. ƒ 5. copy of the petition filed under section 34 of arbitration and conciliation act before the trial court is made available and no allegation of corruption and involvement of personal interest is made against the arbitrator, challenge made is only on legal grounds. 6. therefore, in the light of the submission made by sri.h n.n.prasad and law laid down by the hon'ble apex court, the arbitrator cannot be summoned as party to explain his conduct about the decision passed by him, unless serious allegation of corruption or involvement of personal interest is attributed to the arbitrator in passing of the award. therefore, summons so issued can only be summoned to produce the original documents and award passed and not beyond that. therefore rule 4(c) of high court of karnataka arbitration ƒ proceedings before the courts, 2001 will have tc be read and understood in this manner only. 7. accordingly, the petition is allowed. it is made clear that the petitioner/arbitrator need not appear before trial court on the date fixed by the trial court except producing original documents and the award passed b}t him and obtain acknowledgement to that effect. further it is made clear that in all petitions filed under section 34 of arbitration and conciliation act 1996, whenever an arbitrator is made as a party, no summons shall be issued to the arbitrator except notifying the arbitrator to produce the entire case file before the chief ministerial officer/chief administrative officer of the court and obtain an acknowledgement to that effect unless serious allegations are made against the arbitrator who has passed the award. ƒ registry to send a copy of this order to the trial court.
Judgment:

(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the initiation of proceedings and issuance of summons produced at Annx-E arraing the petitioner as defendant no.2 in Arbitration Suit No.0000062/2015 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-45) at Bengaluru and etc.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. With their consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. Sri.H.N.M.Prasad a practicing advocate of Bangalore City is the petitioner in the present case. He has passed an award in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 10.3.2015 relating to a case between Vasundhara Srinivasan and M/s.Keppel Puruvankara Developers Pvt. Ltd. The said award passed is challenged respondent No.1 Vasundhara Srinivasan before the City Civil Court Bangalore in Arbitration Suit i.e.., A.S.NO.62/2015 in terms of Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation making M/s.Keppel Puruvankara Developers Pvt. Ltd. as defendant No. and Sri.H.N.N.Prasad, Arbitrator as defendant No.2.

3. Learned Judge of the Arbitration Court has issued summons directing Sri.H.N.N.Prasad, the petitioner herein to appear before him on 1.8.2015 in order to show cause against the application filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, lest the application would be heard and deterined ex- parte. Being aggrieved by the said summons issued by the City Civil Court, present petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. ƒ

4. Sri. H.N. N.Prasad submits that though Rule 4(c) of High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules 2001 mandates that in a petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act to make an Arbitrator as party, no summons could be issued is his arguments. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. M/s.Orient Engg. and Commercial Co. Ltd. And Another (1978 (1) SCC 10). While dealing under Section 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 and Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Arbitrator may be called as witness in respect of his award and he cannot however be summoned to explain as to how he has arrived at his award. The same analogy of principles of Hon'ble Apex Court is equally applicable to the present act also. ƒ

5. Copy of the petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the trial court is made available and no allegation of corruption and involvement of personal interest is made against the arbitrator, challenge made is only on legal grounds.

6. Therefore, in the light of the submission made by Sri.H N.N.Prasad and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Arbitrator cannot be summoned as party to explain his conduct about the decision passed by him, unless serious allegation of corruption or involvement of personal interest is attributed to the arbitrator in passing of the award. Therefore, summons so issued can only be summoned to produce the original documents and award passed and not beyond that. Therefore Rule 4(c) of High Court Of Karnataka Arbitration ƒ

Proceedings before the Courts, 2001 will have tc be read and understood in this manner only.

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. It is made clear that the petitioner/Arbitrator need not appear before trial court on the date fixed by the trial court except producing original documents and the award passed b}T him and obtain acknowledgement to that effect. Further it is made clear that in all petitions filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, whenever an arbitrator is made as a party, no summons shall be issued to the arbitrator except notifying the arbitrator to produce the entire case file before the Chief Ministerial Officer/Chief Administrative Officer of the Court and obtain an acknowledgement to that effect unless serious allegations are made against the arbitrator who has passed the award. ƒ

Registry to send a copy of this order to the trial court.