- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29088-DB COMAP No. 343 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S BHADRA LANDMARKS PVT LTD, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, OFFICE AT NO.59/4, 'BHADRA', 1ST FLOOR, MARKET ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. SARVESHAA.S.B. …APPELLANT (BY SRI R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S N SHEELA, W/O. SRI A.SURESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, FLAT NO. 102, BHADRA LANDMARK, NO.14/1, HAUDIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042. 2. SMT. I.M.SHAILA, W/O. SRI I.B.MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, VIJAYALAKSHMI NIVAS, EAST CIRCLE ROAD, NEAR VB BAKERY, V.V.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 004. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29088-DB COMAP No. 343 of 2025 3. SMT. S.N.SHARMILA @ K.G.SHARMILA, W/O. SRI K.L.GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT 'ESHWAR SADHAN', SHERIFF STREET, OPP. SHIVANEEL GAS, CHICKMANGALURU-577 101. 4. SMT. S.N.SARITHA @ NABHA ARAVIND SARITHA, W/O. SRI N.ARAVIND @ N.N.ARAVINDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.84, SRI RAKSHA APARTMENTS, NO.001, GROUND FLOOR, MODEL HOUSE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. 5. SRI S.NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O. LATE SRI S.A.SATHYA NARAYANA CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, NO.84, SRI RAKSHA APARTMENTS, NO.001, GROUND FLOOR, MODEL HOUSE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5) THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT R/W SEC.37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-82), BENGALURU FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 IN COM.A.A.NO.324/2024 ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29088-DB COMAP No. 343 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act], impugning an order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Commercial Court], in Comm. A.A. No. 324 of 2024. 2. The respondents had preferred the said petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act, inter alia praying that the appellant be restrained from alienating or creating third party rights in a portion of the property developed on Municipal No.14/1 (earlier being Municipal Nos. 14 and 17) situated at Haudin Road, Bharathi Nagar, Ward No.81, Bengaluru [the subject property]. 3. The disputes between the parties stem from a Joint Development Agreement entered into between the appellant [Developer] and the respondents [Owners]. In terms of the Joint - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29088-DB COMAP No. 343 of 2025 Development Agreement, the Developer had agreed to construct and develop the subject property and the developed property was to be shared equally. There is no dispute that the respondents have been allocated and given possession of five residential flats, in terms of the Joint Development Agreement. 4. The dispute raised, relates to an area measuring 39.3' x 12.4', which has been developed in the stilt area of the building constructed on the subject property. 5. It is the respondents' case that the said space has been developed as an office for association of apartment owners. The same was not contemplated in the original building plan. In other words, it is their case that the said area is an additional construction, which has been carried on by the appellant. Whilst the respondents claim an equal share of the said area and assert that the same is required to be used as an office for the association of apartment owners, the appellant [Developer] claims that the said space belongs to it exclusively, and it has the right to alienate the same. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29088-DB COMAP No. 343 of 2025 6. The said disputes are required to be adjudicated in arbitration. However, in the meanwhile, the respondents became aware that the appellant has issued an advertisement for sale of one BHK ready-to-move apartment in the building in question. The respondents apprehend that the appellant is attempting to alienate the space in question described in Schedule 'B' and create third party rights. This led the respondents to file the application under Section 9 of the A&C Act. 7. The Learned Commercial Court examined the dispute between the parties and had restrained the appellant [developer], from alienating or creating any third party right in respect of the property described in Schedule 'B' to the petition; that is, the additional space developed on the stilt area of the building in question. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the respondents cannot claim any share in the subject property other than the five flats which have been allotted to them. He also referred to the Deed of Confirmation whereby the respondents had confirmed that the project is complete and that they had received - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29088-DB COMAP No. 343 of 2025 possession of their share of the developed property. He also contends that since the project is complete, the arbitration clause is exhausted. 9. There is no cavil that the respondents are in possession of the five separate flats, which have fallen to their share. There is also no dispute that the respondents have no claim in respect of the portion of the developed property that has fallen to the share of the appellant [Developer]. The dispute is essentially in relation to the additional space that has been constructed, which according to the respondents is required to be used for the purpose for which it was made; that is, for the benefit of the apartment owners. In any event, they claim that the same does not fall within the exclusive share of the developer and therefore, is required to be shared in equal proportion. 10. Given the nature of disputes, we are unable to accept that the impugned judgment can be faulted. The learned Commercial Court cannot be faulted for directing the interim measures of protection till the disputes are adjudicated. Clearly, if the appellant [Developer] is permitted to alienate or create third party rights in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29088-DB COMAP No. 343 of 2025 disputed area, the respondents' claim would effectively stand frustrated. Indisputably, the subject matter of dispute is required to be preserved. 11. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 12. The pending I.A.No.1/2025 seeking stay of the impugned order, stands disposed of as well. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19