- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7097 WP No. 4758 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4758 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHREYAS SHIBULAL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O SRI S D SHIBULAL 2. SMT. BHAIRAVI MADHUSUDHAN SHIBULAL AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O SRI. SHREYAS SHIBULAL BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 383 42ND CROSS, 9TH MAIN 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560 041 BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. MADHUSUDHAN SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE K. SRINIVASAN R/AT VILLA NO. 9, AKSHAYA WHITEFIELD HOSKOTE MAIN ROAD KANNAMANGALA POST BENGALURU 560 067. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SAMMITH. S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT PROJECTS (INDIA) PVT LTD Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7097 WP No. 4758 of 2025 INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 2. M/S SHIBANEE & KAMAL ARCHITECTS LLP (FORMERLY, M/S SHIBANEE AND KAMAL ARCHITECTS) INCORPORATED UNDER LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008 BOTH RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT “IMAGINE”, NO. 78 ITPL ROAD, EPIP ZONE, WHITEFIELD BANGALORE-560 066. BOTH 1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER & AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. KAMAL SAGAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL & SRI. C K NANDA KUMAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMED SAMEER., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN COM.AA 93/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-83) AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 14.02.2025 PASSED IN IA NO. 1 AND 2 UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 R/W ORDER XXXIX, RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, BY THE LEARNED LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-83) IN COM.AA.93/2025 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7097 WP No. 4758 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the LXXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, in Com.A.A.No.93/2025. 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of writ petition and has contended that the impugned order dated 14.02.2025, which is challenged in this writ petition is passed on applications filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’). There is a remedy of appeal under Section 37 of the Act against an order granting or refusing ex-parte interim measure on an application filed under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, this writ petition is not - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7097 WP No. 4758 of 2025 maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Com.Appeal.No.56/2024 dated 19.07.2024. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that only against an order granting or refusing an ex-parte interim order, an appeal under Section 37 of the Act is maintainable. In the case on hand, after appearance of respondent before the Trial Court and before filing the objections, the impugned order has been passed. The application is not yet disposed of. In that case, the remedy of appeal under Section 37 of the Act does not arise. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in Com.Appeal.No.56/2024 disposed of on 19.07.2024 has held that the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable against an order granting or refusing ex-prate interim measure under - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7097 WP No. 4758 of 2025 Section 9 of the Act, 1996. Paragraph-29 of the said judgment is relevant and is extracted hereunder: “29. Conclusions on the question of law. (a) The appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable against an order granting or refusing ex-parte interim measure under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, even if the Section 9 application is filed before the Commercial Court, as defined under Commercial Courts Act, 2015. (b) As a corollary, appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 is maintainable against an order granting or refusing ex-parte interim measure under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, if the Section 9 application is filed before the Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act, 1996. (c) xxxxxxx (d) xxxxxxx (e) xxxxxxx” 5. In view of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act and the judgment of this Court rendered in Com.Appeal.No.56/2024, any order passed under Section 9 of the Act, appeal under Section 37 of the Act is maintainable. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7097 WP No. 4758 of 2025 6. In the present case, the order under challenge is passed on an application filed under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Com.Appeal.No.56/2024 disposed of on 19.07.2024, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of petitioners approaching the appropriate legal forum. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1