- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27507 WP No. 14955 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14955 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. NO.123, ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI-600001. REP BY ITS MANAGER(LEGAL) MR NAGABHUSHANA M.C., S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 2. M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD. NO.3/4, NSR YARD, AYYAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR JALAHALLI CROSS, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560057. REP BY ITS MANAGER(LEGAL) MR. NAGABHUSHANA M.C. S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.J. ALVA., ADVOCATE) AND: N. RAJANNA S/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27507 WP No. 14955 of 2019 NO.340, 7TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560079. &RESPONDENT (V/C/O DATED 12.06.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD.4.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCCH NO.3) IN OS NO.4981/2012 REJECTING IA NO.2 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS U/S 8(1) OF THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-'A' AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, petitioners are seeking for the following relief: "i. Set aside the orders dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.3) in OS.No.4981/2012 rejecting IA No.2 filed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27507 WP No. 14955 of 2019 petitioners under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, which is produced at Annecure 'A'. ii. Allow IA No.2 filed by the petitioners under Section 8 (1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and refer the parties for arbitration for adjudication of the dispute pertaining to the subject matter of the suit in OS.No.4981/2012. iii. Consequently dismiss the suit in OS.No.4981/2012 on the file of the learned City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.3). iv. Grant cost of this petition. v. And also grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice". 2. Heard Sri. M.J. Alva, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27507 WP No. 14955 of 2019 application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, contending that the suit is not maintainable, as the dispute is an arbitral dispute. However, the Trial Court solely on the ground that the counsel for the defendant was not present, rejected the said application for non prosecution. It is submitted that although the Trial Court recorded the reason that the application was filed three years back, no steps have been taken by the petitioner for pressing the said application. It is submitted that one opportunity may be provided to the petitioner/defendant, so that he can argue the application, and the Trial Court can consider the same in accordance with the law. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has also initiated a proceeding to appoint an Arbitrator. However, due to the pendency of this petition, arbitration proceedings are also not proceeded with, hence, he seeks to show one indulgence in the matter by directing the Trial Court to consider the application on its merits. 4. In support of his contention, he placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHER V. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27507 WP No. 14955 of 2019 T.THANKAM1, and also placed his reliance in the case of MRS. HEMA KHATTAR AND ANOTHER V. SHIV KHERA2. Hence, seeks to allow the petition. 5. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent, though the notice was served. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 7. The pleadings and material on record indicate that the respondent has filed suit in OS.No.4981/2012 for the relief of declaration that the respondent/plaintiff is not due any loan amount to the defendant No.2 and sought for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, R/w section 151 of CPC., seeking to dismiss the suit on the ground that there is an Arbitration Clause in the agreement entered between the petitioner and respondent dated 1 (2015 (4) SCJ 52) 2 (2017 (3) SCJ 646) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27507 WP No. 14955 of 2019 12.02.2008. However, under the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the said application for non prosecution. 8. In my considered view, the application requires to be adjudicated by the Trial Court by providing sufficient opportunity to the defendant/petitioner. The application under Section 8 raises an issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, which requires to be adjudicated by the Trial Court on merits. Although there have been some latches and lapses on the part of petitioners in prosecuting IA filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, one opportunity ought to be provided to the petitioner. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 04.12.2018 passed in OS.No.4981/2012 by the learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.3) is set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27507 WP No. 14955 of 2019 iii. The Trial Court is directed to consider IA filed by the petitioners under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, R/w Section 151 of CPC, in accordance with the law by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioners and to the respondent. No Order as to cost. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SRK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29