- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7368 WP No. 4427 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 4427 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. SITARA PROJECTS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 146, 8TH CROSS, MANYATA RESIDENCY, NAGAWARA, BENGALURU-560 045. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, (i) MR. N.RAVIKUMAR, SON OF N.RAMALINGAPPA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKSHITH PAI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNDARARAMAN.M.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. A.R.NANDAKUMAR SON OF RAMA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. MRS . N.SULOCHANA WIFE OF NANDAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. MS. N.LAHARIPRIYA DAUGHTER OF NANDAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.S 1 TO 3 RESIDING AT: RESIDING AT NO.454, 15TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 030. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7368 WP No. 4427 of 2021 4. SRI. KUKKAJE RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, SOLE ARBITRATOR, NO.116/5, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, (NEAR VENUGOPAL SWAMY TEMPLE), BENGALURU - 560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3; NOTICE TO R4-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:02.03.2021) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Rakshith Pai., counsel on behalf of Sri.Sundara Raman.M.V., for the petitioner and Sri.Anoop Haranahalli., counsel for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Set aside the impugned Transfer Order dated:19.08.2020 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-2) City Civil Court, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A, transferring the A.S.No.140/2016 to the Commercial Court - CCH-83. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7368 WP No. 4427 of 2021 (b) Set aside the impugned Order on Memo dated:10.02.2021 passed by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court-CCH-85), Bengaluru vide Annexure-A, dismissing the Memo filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of the Com.A.S.No.140/2016 back to City Civil Court. (c) Allow the memo filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of the Com A.S.No.140/2016 back to City Civil Court, Bengaluru vide Annexure-F and Transfer the Com.A.S.No.140/2016 pending in the file of LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court-CCH85) to the file of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-2), City Civil Court, Bengaluru for further adjudication. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. Suffice it to note that a dispute arose between and the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3. Hence, they were constrained to approach the Arbitrator and an arbitral award - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7368 WP No. 4427 of 2021 was passed in A.C.No.16/2012 on 09.08.2016. The arbitral award was challenged before the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in A.S.No.140/2016. The Civil Court referred to a notification No.ADM-IA(A)/411/2020 dated:17.08.2020 and transferred the case to Commercial Court-CCH-83 vide order dated:19.08.2020. On transfer, the Commercial Court transferred the case from CCH-83 to CCH-85. As the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed a Memo along with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited V/s. K.S. Infraspace LLP and another reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1311, requesting the Court to transfer the matter to the Civil Court. The respondents 1 to 3 orally objected for the transfer of the case. The Commercial Court vide order dated:10.02.2021 concluded that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 arises out of a joint venture agreement, hence, the prayer of the petitioner to transfer the case to the Civil Court was rejected. This is untenable in law. The reasons is apparent. The petitioner assailed an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7368 WP No. 4427 of 2021 1996, and so, the lis between the parties must be adjudicated by the Civil Court. Hence, the finding of the Commercial Court that the dispute arising out of a joint venture agreement is a commercial dispute and the case must be tried by the Commercial Court cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order dated:10.02.2021 passed by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court-CCH-85), Bengaluru vide Annexure-A is quashed. The Commercial Court is hereby directed to transfer the case to the Civil Court. The Memo filed by the petitioner seeking transfer is allowed and the Commercial Court is hereby directed to transfer Com.A.S.No.140/2016 pending on the file of LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court- CCH85) to the file of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-2), City Civil Court, Bengaluru for further adjudication. 5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31