- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16 WP No. 30542 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 30542 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. ANITHA H AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O MR. MANJUNATH GOWDA N., 2. MS.POONAVI M., AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, D/O MR. MANJUNATH GOWDA N., BOTH ARE R/AT NO.21/5, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT, DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU 560 097 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KAVITHA D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK, 11TH FLOOR, TOWER A, GANPATRAO KADAM MARG, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16 WP No. 30542 of 2025 LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI 400 013 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, M/S. TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD., NO.82/1, GROUND FLOOR, KRISHNA TOWERS, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU 560 025 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF PROHIBITION BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER DATED 11/08/2025, PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR IN ARBITRATION DISPUTE CASE BEARING NO.2025-5363-5747-8739 BEFORE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY ADRES AT CHENNAI (ANNEXURE A) WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND IN SERIOUS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16 WP No. 30542 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question interim order dated 11.08.2025 by an Arbitral Tribunal in the Arbitration Dispute No.2025-5363-5747-8739. The proceedings of the Arbitral Tribunal are at Chennai. Ms. Kavitha D, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondents have commenced the arbitration proceedings because of the default committed by the first petitioner's husband [Mr. Manjunath Gowda N]. On the merits of the petitioners' grievance with the impugned interim order, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners have invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 for the Constitution of India on the ground of jurisdiction. Ms. Kavitha D, to support the petitioners' grievance with the impugned order, submits that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16 WP No. 30542 of 2025 [a] the loan outstanding is only in a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-, which is now increased to Rs.13,00,000/-, [b] after the impugned interim order, the respondents have sealed the premises [a residential property], but movables continue to be within the premises, and [c] the first petitioner, despite matrimonial dispute with her husband, is willing to clear the loan as that would serve not only her interest but also the interest of her daughter [the second petitioner]. The learned counsel ultimately submits that this Court may dispose of this petition, extending appropriate protection to the petitioners against removal of movable property from the premises with liberty to the petitioners to avail remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short, 'the Arbitration Act']. The circumstances of the case as put forward are considered in the light of the reasons assigned in the impugned order and the indisputable position - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16 WP No. 30542 of 2025 that the petitioners have their statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. This Court is of the view that the petitioners' grievance must be considered in the statutory appeal, if availed by the petitioners, and insofar as the interim order, it would suffice for this Court to observe that the same must also be considered in the appeal that the petitioners may file. As such, the petition stands disposed of with all just liberties to the petitioners. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB