Karnataka High Court
Manjushri Kabra vs Maya Tradelinks Limited on 24 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2025 (BDA)
Digitally
signed by BETWEEN:
SRIDEVI S
Location:
High Court 1. MANJUSHRI KABRA
of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
WIFE OF SHRI KIRTI KUMAR KABRA
RESIDING AT NO. A-906
R.N.S. SHANTI NIVAS
YESHWANTHPURA, TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 022.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAYA TRADELINKS LIMITED
COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013
VAIBHAV, 4, LEE ROAD
KOLKATA - 700 020.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHANANJAY V. JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
Ms. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 &
SRI. AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD. 15.01.2025 PASSED IN W.P.No.10696 OF 2023 & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
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. The appellant has filed the present intra Court appeal
impugning the order dated 15.01.2025 [impugned order] passed
by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10696/23
captioned Maya Tradelinks Ltd. v. Bangalore Development
Authority and others. The learned Single Judge has directed
Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] which is arrayed as
respondent No.2 in the present appeal, to inform the appellant the
specific date on which it would execute sale deeds in respect of
two sites described as Sites No. 5544 and 5573 forming a part of
Sy.No.3, situated at K. Krishnasagara Village, Nadaprabhu
Kempegowda Layout, measuring 360 sq.mtrs., each [hereafter the
subject sites]. And, proceed to execute the sale deeds
accordingly, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
the certified copy of the order. The BDA has also been directed to
furnish a compliance report to the Court on or before 24.04.2025.
2. It is not the appellant’s case that she does not desire that the
sale deeds for the subject sites be executed in her favour or
desires to relinquish her entitlement to the allotment of the subject
sites. In fact, the appellant does not have any objections to the
execution of the sale deeds in her favour. This Court had pointedly
asked the learned Senior Counsel Smt. Jayna Kothari appearing
for the appellant to take a firm stand if the appellant does not wish
to acquire the title of the sites in question and object BDA
executing the sale deeds in her favour. The learned Senior
Counsel answered in the negative. She submitted that the
appellant is not declining to accept conveyance of the sites in her
favour. However objects to the locus of respondent No.1 securing
an order to that effect from the learned Single Judge.
3. It is clear from the above whilst the appellant has no
grievance regarding BDA executing sale deeds of the subject sites
in her favour. Her objection is confined to the impugned order to
the said effect being passed at the instance of respondent No.1.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
The learned Senior Counsel earnestly contended that respondent
No.1 had no locus to file a writ petition for seeking any relief as
granted by the learned Single Judge. She contended that the writ
petition was not maintainable and therefore, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
4. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan NoorKhan Pathan v.
State of Maharashtra and others: (2013) 4 SCC 465 and on the
strength of the said decision contended that the learned Single
Judge had erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent
No.1 as he had no legal right against BDA. She also referred to
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaven
Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada
Nigam Limited and another: (2022) 1 SCC 75 and contended
that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering that recourse
to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not
available to enforce an arbitral award.
5. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel at length.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
Prefatory Facts
6. The appellant along with her husband and her mother-in-law
were owners of certain parcels of land situated in the village of
Kommaghatta, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru.
Some parcels of the land in question were notified for acquisition
by the BDA. Additionally, certain lands owned by the appellant
along with her mother-in-law were also notified for acquisition by
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board [KIADB].
7. Apparently, the appellant (and her family members) had
entered into agreement(s) to sell the lands in question. In the
context of those agreement(s), one Sri. Narendra Kumar Mohta
had filed a suit being O.S.No.1585/2007 before the II Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District for seeking specific
performance and a decree of sale of certain properties which were
owned by the appellant and her mother-in-law. The appellant, her
mother-in-law and her husband were arrayed as defendants in the
said suit. The parties to the suit entered into a compromise and the
suit was decreed in terms thereon. In terms of the settlement, the
defendants had agreed to sell the properties, which were subject
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
matter of the suit, to the plaintiff Sri. Narendra Kumar Mohta for an
aggregate sum of ₹ 7.5 Crores. Sri. Narendra Kumar Mohta
assigned all his rights and obligations under the decree in favour of
the respondent [hereafter MTL]. The same was also informed to
the appellant and her family members and they acknowledged the
same.
8. The parties [the appellant, her husband and her mother-in-
law Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra] and MTL entered into an agreement
of sale dated 17.07.2014 in respect of the land in question. MTL
states that in terms of the agreement, it also paid a sum ₹ 2.25
crores to persons mentioned in clause 6.1 of the sale agreement.
9. The appellant’s mother-in-law Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra,
expired on 11.12.2015. In the meantime, BDA also completed the
acquisition proceedings in regard to certain properties and declared
that compensation would be payable to affected landowners in the
form of developed sites. Thereafter, the appellant and her husband
entered into a Supplemental Sale Agreement dated 24.11.2017
with MTL and agreed to sell certain sites to MTL on the terms and
conditions as set out in the said agreement.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. In July 2019, BDA issued allotment letters in respect of
twenty one number of sites in favour of the appellant. The said
allotments were made by way of compensation for acquisition of
the lands in question. Thereafter, BDA executed sale deeds in
favour of the appellant in respect of nineteen sites. The execution
of the sale deeds in respect of the subject sites are pending.
11. It is MTL’s case that it called upon the appellant to
specifically perform her obligation and convey the nineteen sites in
its favour. However, the appellant declined to do so. However,
according to the appellant she was ready and willing to perform the
obligations under the agreement(s) but MTL was not ready and
willing to do so at the material time.
12. In view of the aforesaid dispute, MTL invoked the arbitration
agreement and sought reference of the dispute to Arbitration. It
filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act
[A&C Act] being CMP No. 152 of 2021 in this Court. This Court
appointed a sole arbitrator and constituted the Arbitral Tribunal for
adjudication of the disputes that had arisen between MTL on one
part and appellant and her husband on the other part, in relation to
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
and in connection with the Supplemental Sale Agreement dated
24.11.2017.
13. The arbitral proceedings culminated in an arbitral award
dated 10.10.2022 [the Award] in favour of MTL. The Arbitral
Tribunal, inter alia directed the appellant and her husband to
execute the sale deeds in respect of nineteen sites that were
allotted by BDA and in respect of which BDA had executed sale
deeds in favour of the appellant. The appellant and her husband
were also directed to register sale deeds in respect of the subject
sites [Site Nos. 5544 and 5573, Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri
Hobli, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru], which were described
under Items Nos. 20 and 21 in Schedule ‘B’ to the Statement of
Claims. The dispositive part of the Award is set out below:
“Award
The claims put forth by Claimant in SOC
are allowed with cost in the following terms:
(i) It is declared that the termination of the
Agreements dated 17.07.2014 and
24.11.2017 (Exs.P2 and P3) by Respondents
on 30.01.2021 through notice-Ex. P7 is
untenable, null and void;
(ii) Respondents are directed to execute the sale
deeds and get them registered in favour of
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
Claimant in respect of 19 Awarded Sites
which are described at item Nos.1 to 19 in
Schedule B of SOC, for which the sale deeds
have already been executed by BDA, within a
period of 3 months from the date of this
Award;
(iii) Respondents are directed to execute and
register the sale deeds in favour of Claimant
in respect of two awarded sites viz., site
bearing Nos.5544 and 5573 carved out in Sy.
No.3 in Krishnasagara Village, each
measuring 360 sq. meters and described at
item Nos.20 and 21 of schedule-B to SOC,
within a period of two months from the date of
BDA executing the sale deeds in respect of
these two sites in favour of Respondent No.2;
(iv) Respondents shall receive ₹1.50 Crores kept
in deposit in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court
Branch, Bangalore, along with accrued
interest therein, towards the balance amount
payable for the sale of all the 21 awarded
sites, after the execution of sale deeds in
respect of 19 Awarded Sites described at
Item Nos. 1 to 19 of Schedule B to SOC in
favour of Claimant within a period of 3
months from the date of this Award as
stipulated at (ii) above and after execution of
sale deeds in favour of Claimant in respect of
the remaining two Awarded Sites within the
time as stipulated at (iii) above.
(v) In the event of Respondents’ failure to
execute the sale deeds in respect of the
properties described in schedule-B to SOC,
within the periods as stipulated at (ii) & (iii)
above, Claimant is at liberty to enforce this
Award in accordance with Section 36 of the
Act before the jurisdictional Court.
(vi) Claimant is entitled to recover from
Respondents ₹6,72,000/- towards costs of
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
this Arbitral Proceedings. Respondents shall
pay to Claimant the said costs within a period
of 3 months from the date of this Award,
failing which the amount shall carry interest at
6% per annum from the date of this Award till
the date of payment.
(vii) The order dt.31-05 2021 passed by the Court
of LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangaluru (CCH.83) in Com.A.A. No.4 of
2021 restraining the Respondents from
alienating or creating third party rights in
respect of Awarded Sites till the disposal of
this Arbitral proceedings, is ordered to be
continued till all the terms of this Award are
fully satisfied.
(viii) The Counter Claims put forth by
Respondents are dismissed with costs.
(ix) Respondents shall bear their costs incurred
by them in this Arbitral Proceedings.
(x) The claimant is directed to pay requisite
stamp duty on the award as per the
provisions of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
With the pronouncement and publication of
the Award, this arbitral proceeding stands
terminated as per Section 32(1) of the Act.
This award is signed and issued in 3
originals, one for the record of Arbitration &
Conciliation Centre and rests to each of the
parties.
(This award was typed by me on my personal
laptop, at my Home Office, then edited and
corrected and then signed in the Arbitration &
Conciliation Centre on this day i.e., 10th
October 2022).”
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
14. The appellant preferred an application under Section 34 of
the A&C Act [Comp A.P.No.26/2023] to set aside the Award, before
the learned Commercial Court. However, the same was dismissed
in terms of judgment dated 03.03.2025. The appellant has
appealed the said judgment before this Court under Section
37(1)(c) of the A&C Act [COMP Appeal No.160/2025]. The said
appeal is stated to be pending but no interim orders have been
passed.
15. MTL has also filed the proceedings under Section 36 of the
A&C Act for enforcement of the Award.
16. In the meantime, MTL made enquiries with BDA regarding
execution of the sale deeds in respect to the subject sites. The
appellant had taken no steps to get the sale deeds in respect of the
two sites in question executed in her favour. Apprehending
protracted inaction on the part of BDA and the consequent delay in
conveyance of the two sites in question in favour of the appellant,
and in turn in its favour, MTL filed the writ petition praying that the
BDA be directed to execute sale deeds in respect of the sites in
question.
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
17. As stated above, learned Single Judge allowed the appeal
and directed the BDA to execute the sale deeds in favour of the
appellant.
Reasons and Conclusions
18. It is clear from the facts obtaining in the present case that the
appellant can have no legitimate grievance against the impugned
order. There is no dispute that in terms of the allotment letters
issued to the appellant, BDA is required to execute conveyance in
respect of the subject sites in her favour. The appellant may
dispute her obligation to convey the subject sites to MTL. But, she
can have no grievance regarding conveyance of the subject sites in
her favour.
19. As noted above, the appellant has not prevailed in the
arbitration proceedings and MTL’s claim has been adjudicated in its
favour and against the appellant by the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of
the Award. The appellant has also not prevailed in her challenge to
the said award under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
20. It is clear that the objective of the appellant is to obstruct
issuance of directions to BDA to execute sale deeds in respect of
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
the subject sites and delay the proceedings by enforcement of the
arbitral award. The present appeal is yet another step by the
appellant towards the said objective.
21. The learned Single Judge was persuaded to issue a direction
to the BDA to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant, as
the said order did not create any right in favour of the MTL. This is
apparent from the following extract of the impugned order:
“8. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.2
vehemently oppose such a request as the petitioner is
not entitled as yet for such a direction.
9. There is an award in favour of the petitioner as noted
above and the same is also subject matter of appeal
pending consideration. The direction sought for by the
petitioner against respondent No.1-BDA is only to
execute the deeds of sale in respect of the aforesaid
two sites in favour of respondent No.2, which even
executed would not create any right, title and interest in
favour of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever until
disposal of the appeal which is stated to have been
pending consideration.
10. In view of the aforesaid fact situation of the matter,
and in view of submission made by learned counsel for
respondent No.1-BDA, respondent No.1-BDA is hereby
directed to issue an intimation to respondent No.2
specifying the date on which it would execute the deeds
of sale in her favour and shall execute the deeds of sale
accordingly. Such exercise shall be done within an
outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order and compliance report in this
regard be submitted to this Court on or before
24.02.2025.
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025HC-KAR
11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the rights of the parties. It is only
in furtherance to the allotment letters issued by
respondent-BDA the aforesaid direction is issued.
With the above observation writ petition is disposed of”.
22. As observed by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court
in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar: (1975) 2 SCC
702:
“a person will be held to be aggrieved by a
decision if that decision is materially adverse to him.
Normally, one is required to establish that one has been
denied or deprived of something to which one is legally
entitled in order to make one “a person aggrieved”.
Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed
on him.”
23. In our view the present appeal is liable to be dismissed on
the short ground that the appellant has no legitimate grievance in
respect of the impugned order.
24. The contention of the appellant that MTL did not have a locus
to file the writ petition is also unpersuasive. The BDA was not a
party to the Arbitral proceedings. It is also clear that it is necessary
for the appellant to secure the execution of sale deeds by BDA in
her favour in order for MTL to enforce the relief as secured before
the Arbitration. Although the MTL does not have any contractual
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
arrangement with BDA and is not the allottee under the allotment
letters issued by BDA, we are unable to accept that MTL has no
vestige of interest in BDA performing its obligation to convey the
sites in question in favour of the appellant. Undeniably, MTL has
interest in ensuring that the title to subject sites are conveyed by
BDA. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court
in Asst. G.M., Central Bank of India v. Commr., Municipal
Corpn. for the City of Ahmedabad: (1995) 4 SCC 696, whereby
the Court held that a tenant is entitled to impugn increase in
property tax, although the levy was on the landlord. The Court
reasoned that the burden of such increase may be passed by the
landlord to the tenant. And, in the given facts, there was an
agreement between the landlord and the tenant in terms of which
the tenant had the obligation to pay the property tax.
25. It is equally relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme
Court in case of I.D.L Chemicals v. Union of India:(1996) 5 SCC
373. The appellant in that case was engaged in manufacture of
explosives and had purchased ammonium nitrate 80% melt from
SAIL for the said purpose. Ammonium nitrate was classified as a
fertilizer and enjoyed exemption of excise duty. Subsequently, the
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
Central Board of Customs and Excise reclassified ammonium
nitrate 80% melt and thus the exemption from excise was not
available. Consequently a demand of excise was raised on SAIL,
which in turn demanded the amount from the appellant. The
appellant challenged the reclassification and withdrawal of
exemption by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed. The High
Court did not entertain the petition and relegated the appellant to
file a suit. The Supreme Court faulted the decision of the High
Court and held that the appellant suffered civil consequences and
thus was entitled to maintain the writ petition.
26. The decision in the case of Ayaaubkhan NoorKhan Pathan,
reliance placed by the petitioner is misplaced in the said case.
The writ petitioner is arrayed as respondent No.5 before the
Supreme Court and sought to challenge the caste certificate issued
in favour of the appellant in that case certifying that he belongs to
Schedule Tribe. The appellant was granted employment and was
appointed as a Senior Clerk in Municipal Corporation of
Aurangabad. Prior to appointment, the appellant’s caste certificate
had been duly verified. Respondent No. 5 – [the complainant] had
filed a complaint after a lapse of 9 years challenging the validity of
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
the caste certificate. The Scrutiny Committee examined the
complaint and rejected it. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 filed a writ
petition before the Bombay High Court impugning the decision of
the Scrutiny Committee to reject his complaint. The Bombay High
Court disposed of the petition without examining the merits of the
case. However, directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide afresh
after hearing all concerned parties. In the aforesaid context the
Supreme Court faulted the locus of respondent No. 5 [the
complainant], to pursue the challenge to the appellant’s caste
certificate. The Supreme Court had observed that “it was the
settled legal proposition i.e., a stranger cannot be permitted to
meddle in any proceedings”. We also consider apposite to refer to
paragraph 14 of the said decision which is set out below.
“14. This Court has consistently cautioned the Courts
against entertaining public interest litigation filed by
unscrupulous persons as such meddlers do not hesitate
to abuse the process of Court. The right of effective
access to justice, which has emerged with the new
social rights regime, must be used to serve basic
human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights
and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework
of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any
public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the
case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public
interest involved. The Court must maintain strict
vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the
process of Court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025HC-KAR
bystanders are not granted a visa”. Many societal
pollutants create new problems of non- redressed
grievances, and the Court should make an earnest
endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective
purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide P.S.R.
Sadhanantham v. Arimachalam : (1980) 3 SCC 141,
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.: (2010) 2 SCC 114, State of
Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal : (2010) 3 SCC
402 and Amar Singh v. Union of India: (2011) 7 SCC
69).”
27. Clearly, in the facts of the said case, the complainant had no
locus to pursue the challenge to the caste certificate issued to the
appellant. It had not suffered any legal injury and had no personal
interest in the subject matter. In the present case, MTL is rightly
interested in ensuring that BDA performs its obligation and
executes the conveyance deed of the subject property in favour of
the appellant. Smt. Jayna Kothari’s contention that the BDA must
have a direct obligation towards MTL for maintaining the writ
petition is unsustainable.
28. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant in the case of Bhaven Constructions
(supra) is also misplaced. In that case [Bhaven Construction]
appointed an arbitrator. The respondent [Sardar Sarovar Narmada
Nigam Limited] had challenged the jurisdiction of the Arbitral
Tribunal by filing an application under Section 16 of the A&C Act,
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
which came to be rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal. Respondent
No. 1 preferred to file a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat,
which was rejected. The High Court held that the writ petition
interdicting the arbitral proceedings, was not maintainable and it
was necessary for the petitioner to wait till the arbitral award is
passed by the Arbitral Tribunal to challenge the same under
Section 34 of the A&C Act. However, the Division Bench of the
Court set aside the said order on an appeal preferred by the
respondent against the decision of the learned Single Judge. The
appellant (Bhaven Constructions) appealed the said decision of the
Division Bench before the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid context,
the Supreme Court had referred to Section 5 of the A&C Act and
faulted the Division Bench in interfering with the arbitral process.
The Supreme Court observed that:
“If the Courts are allowed to interfere with the
arbitral process beyond the ambit of the
enactment, then the efficiency of the process will
be dismissed”.
29. According to Smt. Jayna Kothari, the writ petition filed by
MTL amounts to interfering with the arbitral process. In our view
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
the said contention is insubstantial. The writ petition filed by the
MTL does not in any manner interfere with the arbitral process. The
Arbitral Tribunal has delivered the Award. The appellant’s
application under Section 34 of the A&C Act to set aside the award
has been rejected. The appellant has filed an appeal under Section
37(1)(c) of the A&C Act, which is pending. And MTL has initiated
proceedings under Section 36 of the A&C Act to enforce the
Award. The said proceedings continue and are not prejudiced in
any manner. Neither the petition preferred by MTL nor the
impugned order interferes in any manner with the arbitral process.
The impugned order does not affect the appellant adversely in any
manner. In the event the appellant prevails in its appeal under
Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act and the Award is set aside, the
appellant would not be required to convey the sites in question in
favour of MTL. The impugned judgment does not adversely affect
the appellant’s rights in any manner.
30. The impugned order is not materially adverse to the
appellant. The appellant has not been denied or deprived of
anything that she is legally entitled to. No legal burden is imposed
on her. It is apparent that the entire purpose of resisting the petition
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
and filing the present appeal is an attempt to unfairly prejudice MTL
by delaying the inevitable consequences of not prevailing in the
arbitration, in the event the appellant fails in its appeal against the
decision of the learned Commercial Court rejecting the appellant’s
application to set aside the Award.
31. In our view, the present appeal is an unjustified imposition on
judicial time.
32. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with costs
quantified at ₹ 20,000/-. The appellant shall deposit the costs with
the Karnataka State High Court Legal Services Committee within a
period of two weeks from date.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
[ad_1]
Source link