CHETHAN BHANDARY Vs. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order dated 11.4.2012 passed by VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in A.S.No.22/2009, dismissing the applications I.As. 3 and 4, filed by the appellant.

(2.) IN relation to a dispute between the appellant and the first respondent, an arbitral award came to be passed by the sole Arbitrator, Mr.M.V.Badrinath dismissing the claim of first respondent-M/s Kotak Securities Limited against this appellant and allowing the counter claim made by this appellant. Under the award, a sum of Rs.8,74,750/- was directed to be paid by M/s Kotak Securities Limited to the appellant herein with interest at 12% per annum from 29.12.2006 to the date of the award. M/s Kotak Securities Limited was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost and other expenses of the arbitration and compensation for the hardships caused to the appellant. The award further directed that Rs.9,24,750/- being the sum total of the above would bear interest at 18% from the date of the arbitral award till date of the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) to be made out by the applicant viz., M/s Kotak Securities Limited for a period of not less than 91 days from the Clearing Bank where the applicant has the settlement account and deposit such FDR with the National Stock Exchange (NSE). Award further directed that the interest payable to the constituent from the date of FDR till the date of payment shall be the interest accrued on the FDR till the date of encashment. Aggrieved by the said award, M/s Kotak Securities Limited filed application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was registered as an Arbitration Suit No.22/2009 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore, seeking to set aside the said award and for directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.7,87,740/- with interest at 24% per annum. The said suit was contested by the appellant who had been arrayed as defendant No.1, both on merits and on the question of maintainability, on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.

(3.) WAS filed under Section 151 of CPC once again seeking execution of the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, with consequential benefits namely interest for the period beyond the period covered in the award till the date of the settlement i.e., for the period of delayed payment, for penal interest on the said amount for the said period and also for the cost of litigation before the Bombay High Court and this Court. The contention of the appellant that the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 25.6.2009. Against the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.22502/2009. This Court by order dated 25.1.2010, held that the proceedings initiated by the first respondent � M/s Kotak Securities Limited under Section 34 of the Act was barred by limitation. Against the said order, an appeal came to be filed in W.A.No.772/10 by M/s Kotak Securities Limited. The said appeal was subsequently dismissed and the same was affirmed by the Apex Court. In the light of the orders passed by this Court as well as the order of the Apex Court, the suit in A.S.No.22/09 came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 14.12.2010 on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. The said judgment of the trial Court appears to have not been assailed by M/s Kotak Securities Limited. On the two applications filed in I.As.3 and 4 during the pendency of the suit no order had been passed. Therefore, the appellant filed Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.9792/11 seeking a direction to the court to consider the applications. This court by order dated 25.5.2011 passed in the said Writ Petition directed the trial Court namely City Civil Court, Bangalore to decide the applications filed by the appellant herein for execution of the award on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. In the light of the said direction, the learned City Civil & Sessions Judge, took up the two applications I.As.3 and 4 which had been filed in A.S.No.22/09 for consideration and by the order which is challenged in this appeal, the learned City Civil & Sessions Judge, dismissed the two applications. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been presented by the appellant under Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act. 4. The office has raised objection regarding maintainability of the appeal. I have heard the appellant who appeared in person. Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act does not confer a right of appeal. It deals only with the procedure regarding hearing of the appeal and also pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.