- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47662 CRP No. 304 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 304 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SANDEEP R NAHAR S/O SRI RAMESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS C/O SRI RAMESH KUMAR R/A NO S V 35/1, FLAT NO 353 5TH FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK, RANKA NEST APARTMENT K K S ROAD, OKALIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 021. 2. M/s.NEW HORIZON NO 10, 1ST FLOOR, NATARAJA BUILDING, A M LANE CHICKPET BENGALURU - 560 053 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SANDEEP R. NAHAR. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P D SURANA, ADVOCATE) AND: M/s. FEDERAL BRANDS INDIA LTD., FORMERLY M/s.MICROTEX INDIA LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 46/A, MIDC ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI - 400053 REP. BY SRI. P. RAJASHEKAR S/O SRI. PARAMESHWARA KALLURAYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS BRANCH MANAGER AT ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO 28/1A Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47662 CRP No. 304 of 2019 KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, DODDAKALLASANDRA, NEAR KUMARAN SCHOOL, BANGALORE- 560 062. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115[1] OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN EX.NO.1988/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.III FILED UNDER SECTION 47 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.P.D.Surana, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. Venkatesh Bhagat, learned counsel for respondent. 2. After addressing the arguments at length, an affidavit came to be filed on 18.11.2025 by the authorised representative of respondent company namely Sri.T.Rajashekara. Relevant portions of the said affidavit is culled out hereunder for ready reference. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47662 CRP No. 304 of 2019 2. I state that, the Respondent company is ready to file the Counter Claim towards the claims put forth before the arbitrator and determined in the Arbitration Award dated 08.03.2016 passed by the Sole Arbitrator Sri.P.S.Chowhan in O.S.No.7122/2016 pending on the file of the Learned LIX City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-60). On such liberty to file Counter Claim to a Tune of Rs.74,12,170/- along with Interest at the rate of 21% and on Condonation of Delay in tune with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, above C.R.P. may be disposed-off, keeping open all the contentions open. 3. I state that, the Execution Petition No.1988/2018 filed by us to implement the award dated 16.08.2016 may be quashed by allowing above C.R.P. with a liberty as stated above and the Petitioner shall consent for condonation of delay in tune with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. Therefore, I am filing this Affidavit consenting to file the Counter Claim in pending O.S.No.7122/2016 filed by the Petitioner herein against the Respondent. 3. Sri.P.D.Surana, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.7122/2015 on the file of learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-60), Bengaluru, would submit that affidavit would contain that the respondent would file a counter claim of the amount awarded by the Arbitrator which cannot be accepted. 4. However, he would say that the counter claim may specify the amount and revision petitioner being the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47662 CRP No. 304 of 2019 plaintiff be reserved his right to oppose the counter claim on all counts except on the ground of limitation. 5. His submission is placed on record. 6. The present revision petition is with regard to challenge as to the validity of the award passed by the Arbitrator not appointed by the volition of the parties but by the advocate for the respondent by issuing a notice. The award became final and it was being executed. 7. In the execution petition, an application under Section 47 CPC came to be filed stating that there was no arbitration agreement at all between the parties and at any rate the parties by volition did not appoint the Arbitrator. Therefore unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator and said Arbitrator passing the award is nullity. 8. Learned Judge in the Executing Court however rejected the said contention on the part of the revision petitioner who was the Judgment Debtor before the Executing Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47662 CRP No. 304 of 2019 9. Validity of the said order is called in question in the present revision petition. 10. The revision petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.7122/2015 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-60). It is pertinent to note that the claim of the respondent which was subject matter of the Arbitration cannot be allowed to be defeated on improper proceedings before the Arbitrator. 11. Therefore, the contentions of the revision petitioner is to be accepted by protecting the rights of the respondent who had made the claim before the Arbitrator. 12. Therefore, while setting aside the order of the Executing Court and holding that the award passed by the arbitrator is null and void, though with the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, the right of the respondent needs to be protected. Therefore, if the respondent is permitted to claim the alleged amount due to the respondent from the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47662 CRP No. 304 of 2019 revision petitioner as a counter claim in O.S.No.7122/2015, ends of justice would be met. 13. Sri.Venkatesh Bhagat, learned counsel representing the respondent company, however, expressed his apprehension that the counter claim would be opposed on the ground of limitation. 14. Sri.P.D.Surana, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner had made it clear during the course of hearing itself that he would not press the ground of limitation but the revision petitioner be reserved to oppose the counter claim on all other counts including the valid claim of the respondent. 15. It is in such contingency, Section 14 of the Limitation Act would operate. Rightly or wrongly the respondent approached the Arbitrator and an award came to be passed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47662 CRP No. 304 of 2019 16. While holding that award is nullity, rights of the respondent cannot be allowed to be defeated and therefore the counter claim to be filed in O.S.No.7122/2015 by the respondent in this revision petition shall be entertained by the trial Court and adjudicated on merits on all counts except and the question of limitation. It is made clear that plea of counter claim is time barred cannot be allowed to be urged by the revision petitioner, who is plaintiff in O.S.No.7122/2015. 17. In other words, time spent before the Arbitrator and before the Executing Court and lastly before this Court in this revision petition shall be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act while entertaining the counter claim in O.S.No.7122/2015. 18. All other contentions with regard to the validity and genuineness of the counter claim is left open to be adjudicated in the pending suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47662 CRP No. 304 of 2019 19. With the above observation, Civil revision petition stands allowed and pending execution petition stands closed and award passed by the Arbitrator is hereby declared as null and void. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35