- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11800 WP No. 145338 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 145338 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. DR. SRIKRISHNA S/O. GORURAO NADAGOUDA, AGE: ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. JAYPRIYA HOSPITAL BILAPPANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: VASAN EYE CARE HOSPITAL, A COMPANY DULY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DR. A. M. ARUN S/O. LATE A. R. MURUGAIH, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: CHARIMAN, R/O. VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD., 15/A MAIN ROAD, THILLAI NAGAR, TRICHI-620018. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HUBBALLI IN O.S.NO.222/2016 ON I.A.NO.I WHEREIN AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 8 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT R/W. SEC.151 OF CPC FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IS ALLOWED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PLAINT IS REJECTED I.E, ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11800 WP No. 145338 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: “i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubballi in O.S.No.222/2016 on IA.No.I, wherein an application under section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act r/w Section 151 of CPC filed by the defendant is allowed and consequently the plaint is rejected i.e, Annexure-A; ii. Alternatively, as a matter of expediency, direct the Respondent herein, ie. the defendant before the Trial-Court to commence and conclude the entire Arbitration exercise (directed in terms of the impugned Order) within a period of three months from the date of the filing of this Writ petition and arrange to file the Arbitration award before this Hon’ble Court not later than fifteen days from the date of passing of the Award, as above. iii. The Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to pass any other writ, order, direction etc in the above case to serve the ends of justice.” 2. Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of money. In the said suit, defendant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) praying to refer the matter to the Arbitration by dismissing the suit as per the Arbitration - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11800 WP No. 145338 of 2020 agreement dated 18.05.2006 and the trial Court under the impugned order erroneously allowed the said application. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Sourabh Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has filed a detailed objections and submits that the consideration of relief sought in the present petition would not arise in view of the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short ‘the NCLT’), Division Bench -I, Chennai. It is submitted that paragraph Nos.33 and 37 of the order of the NCLT makes it very clear that the entire rights asserted by the petitioner has been extinguished. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 5. The petitioner has filed OS.No.222/2016 before the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubbali for recovery of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11800 WP No. 145338 of 2020 money. In the said suit, the respondent filed an interlocutory application under Section 8 of the Act r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking prayer to dismiss the suit on the ground that the agreement dated 18.05.2006 contains the arbitration clause. The trial Court under the impugned order allowed the said application and directed the parties to refer the dispute to the arbitrator in view of the clauses 12 and 13 of the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 18.05.2006. 6. The statement of objections filed by the respondent indicates that the creditors approached the NCLT, Chennai under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The NCLT Division Bench -I, Chennai vide order dated 03.02.2023 approved the resolution plan. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order reads as under: “25. The Resolution Plan is hereby Approved by this Adjudicating Authority, subject to the observations made in para 11.3 and 12.6 as above and in terms of this order. The Resolution Plan dated 02.02.2022 shall form part of this Order. The Resolution Plan is binding on the Corporate Debtor and other stakeholders involved so that the revival of the Debtor Company shall come into force with immediate effect. The Moratorium imposed under Section 14 shall cease to have effect from the date of this Order. All authorities are bound by this Order to enable the effective implementation of this Order.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11800 WP No. 145338 of 2020 7. The perusal of the order indicates that all civil and criminal litigations, investigation, enquiries, proceedings etc., against the Corporate Debtor or the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, pending or threatened, present or future, in relation to any period on or before the closing date or on account of Resolution Application being in control of the Corporate Debtor pursuant to this Resolution plan stand extinguished. In view of the said clause and having been accepted the resolution plan and its approval by the NCLT, I am of the considered view that the present proceedings would not survive for consideration and adjudication by this Court. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE ABK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6