SMT. KALPANA BELUR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER Vs. M/S. KARLE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND MR. SUDARSHAN KARLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the 6th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru to pass orders in A.A. No. 382/2012 and 766/2012. The details of the rival contentions in so far as the arbitration proceedings need not be adverted to in the instant petition. All that is necessary to notice is that the petitioner and the respondents have initiated the proceedings in A.A. No. 766/2012 and 382/2012 respectively under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short, 'Act') pending the arbitration proceedings.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that though the applications have been heard more than a year back, the orders have not been passed and as such, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of appropriate direction to the Court below. This Court on several occasions has indicated that it should not be the normal practice for this Court to issue mandamus to a Judicial Officer as the Judicial Officer is required to take note of the proceedings before it and thereafter come to a conclusion depending on the Board of the Court. Notwithstanding the same, what is necessary to be noticed in the instant case is that the parties at the first instance have chosen the alternate dispute resolution mechanism by agreeing upon arbitration in the event of their being dispute so as to make it efficacious. The present applications filed before the Court below under Section 9 of the Act is for interim measure pending such proceedings. Even in such proceedings, if the Court below does not pass orders, more particularly, in a circumstance after such a long time subsequent to the conclusion of the arguments, the same cannot be appreciated. In the instant case, from the extract of the order sheet, which is produced at Annexures - 'J' and 'K' to the petition, in A.A. No. 382/2012, the arguments had concluded on 19.11.2012 and it was posted for orders. Though more than a year has passed by, the order is yet to be passed. Similarly, in A.A. No. 766/2012, the arguments were concluded on 30.11.2012 and had been posted for orders. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to direct the Court below to consider and dispose of the applications in a time frame. In that view, a direction is issued to the 6th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru to pass orders in A.A. Nos. 382/2010 and 766/2012 as expeditiously as possible but not later than 24.01.2014.