- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52510-DB WP No. 24874 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 24874 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION) K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE- 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA) AND: M/S MOHANDAS V RAJANI REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR PANKAJ G THACKER, AGED 66 YERAS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ADIPUR KUTCH, GUJARAT. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.VEENA J.KAMATH FOR SRI. GOVINDARAYA KAMATH K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52510-DB WP No. 24874 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION, OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DATED 31/03/2024 (ANNEXURE-A)., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 31.03.2024, whereby the Arbitral Tribunal has ruled posivitely over its jurisdiction. However while doing so, in paragraph No.35, it has observed as under: "35. The facts and circumstances referred and discussed in detail, in earlier parts of this order are clear that, Foreclosure Agreement cannot be accepted as a novation of contract, as that agreement is found executed under duress and by coercion. That agreement not being valid, the original contract agreement survive and the Arbitration agreement in that contract still - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52510-DB WP No. 24874 of 2024 subsists and the Tribunal will be having jurisdiction to decide the claims on merit. The Respondent-Applicant raised contention that the claimant executed undertaking and later on, the Respondent released amount due as agreed, so there exists no arbitrable dispute. However this contention raised by the respondent is also found to be without any merit. The circumstances disclosed from the letter correspondence between the parties revealed, that said undertaking is obtained by the Respondent, by coercion and the Claimant executed the same, because of coercion and undue influence. The discharge pleaded by the applicant- Respondent is vitiated, so there is no valid discharge The evidence discussed above is clear that both the Foreclosure Agreement as well as undertaking is obtained by coercion. Neither the Foreclosure Agreement nor the undertaking is found executed voluntarily and with free consent." 2. So far as the impugned order in respect of the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal is concerned, we do not want to interfere with the same at this stage, and it would be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52510-DB WP No. 24874 of 2024 open to the petitioner to raise all these contentions at the time of the final hearing in the arbitration proceedings. 3. So far as the observations in paragraph 35 extracted above are concerned, we make it clear that the aforesaid observations are only prima facie view and not the final view of the Tribunal. The Tribunal will take the final view depending on the evidence led by the parties. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 4. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. All pending applications stands closed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21