- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37152-DB COMAP No. 402 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 'THE HUB', SY. NO. 8/2 AND 9 GROUND FLOOR AMBALIPURA BELLANDUR ROAD SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY KOMALA K. REDDY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AJAY RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. JAGADEESH P.S. SON OF SUBBARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. MS. NIHARIKA J REDDY DAUGHTER OF JAGADEESH P.S. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37152-DB COMAP No. 402 of 2025 3. MR NANDAN P.S. SON OF JAGADEESH P.S. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.19/5 NEAR ASWATHA KATTE PARAPPANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE ELECTRONIC CITY POST BENGALURU - 560 100. …RESPONDENTS THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 READ WITH SECTION 37 (1A) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2025 (AT ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE LXXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-88) IN COM.A.A. NO.195/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION I.E., COM.A.A. NO.195/2024, FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 FILED BY THE APPEALLANT & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37152-DB COMAP No. 402 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. For the reasons stated in the application – I.A.1/2025 – the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. 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 15.04.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court in COM.AA.No.195/2024 [impugned order] whereby the appellant's application filed under Section 9 of the A&C Act was rejected. The appellant had filed the said application inter alia praying that directions be issued to the respondents, restraining them from alienating the residential apartments located in a residential project developed by the appellant. 3. The respondents (the landowners) had entered into a Joint Development Agreement [JDA] with the appellant for the development of a residential project on the lands owned by them in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37152-DB COMAP No. 402 of 2025 old Survey No.45/20, (New Survey No.78), situated at Parappana Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru. The appellant had made a security deposit of `2 Crores with the said landowners, which was required to be refunded by the landowners on the appellant performing its obligations of developing the property in question. The JDA also provided that if the security deposit was not refunded, the appellant would be entitled to recover the same from the sale proceeds of the flats falling to the share of the landowners. The appellant apprehends that the respondents would alienate the residential flats falling to their share, without refunding the security deposit. 4. The appellant had also pointed out that the respondents had sold one of the flats, which had fallen to their share. The learned Commercial Court had proceeded on the basis that the flats were sold jointly and there could be no grievance on the part of the appellant regarding sale of the residential flat in question. Further, the learned Commercial Court had also observed that the appellant had not handed over the residential properties as described in Schedule B to the application under Section 9 (1)(ii)(e) of A&C Act before the Commercial Court, which it was obliged to do. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37152-DB COMAP No. 402 of 2025 Additionally, the learned Commercial Court noted that there was a dispute regarding the appellant charging `850/- per square foot as electricity and BESCOM charges. 5. It was the respondents' case that they were not alienating any residential flats. Therefore, the learned Commercial Court proceeded on the basis that the appellant's apprehension was unfounded. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there are certain factual errors in the impugned judgment. First, he submits that the residential flat was not sold by parties jointly. Second, that the appellant had in fact handed over possession of the property described in Schedule B to the application under Section 9 (1)(ii)(e) of A&C Act before the Commercial Court and thus the premise that the land owners were not in possession of their share of the residential units, is incorrect. 7. We note that the impugned judgment does not mention any dispute regarding the question whether the appellant had handed over the residential units fallen to the share of the respondents as described in Schedule B to the application under Section 9 (1)(ii)(e) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37152-DB COMAP No. 402 of 2025 of A&C Act before the Commercial Court, to the respondents. The impugned judgment appears to have proceeded on the basis that it was admitted that the appellant had not handed over the possession of said residential units. In the aforesaid context, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks liberty to file a review petition before the learned Commercial Court. 8. We accordingly dispose of the present appeal with liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate review petition before the learned Commercial Court. We clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. 9. Pending application stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22