SRI BHADRA REDDY v. M/S SRI VINAYAKA INFRA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint
Provisions considered
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ss. 34, 37(1)(c)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The settlement arrived at between the parties recorded and reduced into writing in a joint memo, which is duly signed by the parties as well as their advocates, is accepted. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint memo. Decree shall be…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3990 OF 2024 (AA) BETWEEN:
#1. SRI BHADRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O.SRI. RAMA REDDY, RESIDING AT CHANDAPURA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 081. PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
#2. SRI. RAJESH KOTHARI & SON REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTHA SRI. RAJESH B. KOTHARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O.SRI.G.M.B. KOTHARI, NO.15, 1ST CROSS, CSI COMPOUND, LALBAGH ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 027.
#3. SMT. SANTHOSH R.KOTHARI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O.SRI. RAJESH B. KOTHARI, R/AT NO.15, 1ST CROSS, CSI COMPOUND, LALBAGH ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 027.
#4. SMT. AARTI S.KOTHARI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34202-DB MFA No. 3990 of 2024 HC-KAR W/O.SRI. SANJAY M. KOTHARI, RESIDING AT NO.35/B, 1ST MAIN ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-570 020.
#5. SRI.T.SUNIL KOTHARI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O.SRI.M.TEJRAJ KOTHARI, RESIDING AT NO. 114, DAYA MARGA, SIDDARTHANAGAR, MYSURU-570011.
#6. SRI. H. N. PRAKASHCHAND AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. S/O.LATE NORATHMAL,
#7. SMT. R. PRIYA JAIN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. W/O SRI P RAKESH KUMAR
#8. SMT. SIMPLE JAIN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS W/O SRI P MUKESH KUMAR RESIDING AT NO.25, 4TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, S.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
#9. SMT. S. SANTHOSH BAI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O SRI. C. SURESHCHAND, RESIDING AT NO. 174, MAIN ROAD, COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 005. (BY SRI. SURYAPRAKASH RAO K, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND:
#1. M/S SRI VINAYAKA INFRA A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.51 & 52, 4TH FLOOR, 8TH MAIN, KSRTC LAYOUT, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34202-DB MFA No. 3990 of 2024 HC-KAR J.P.NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560078 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS REPRESNTED BY ITS PARTNERS (A) L. R. RAVISHANKAR (B) K.P. NAIDU
#2. HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI (RETD.) HAVING HIS OFFICE AT: ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HEGDE SUBRAHMANYA MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.02.2025 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.37(1)(c) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT.03.04.2024 PASSED IN A.P.NO.201/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34202-DB MFA No. 3990 of 2024 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) It is submitted that appellant No.6 as well as respondent No.1 are present in the Court and are duly identified by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
#2. Learned counsel appearing on either side are present before the Court and submit that the entire disputes between the parties have been amicably settled.
#3. The settlement arrived at between the parties recorded and reduced into writing in a joint memo, which is duly signed by the parties as well as their advocates, is accepted. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint memo. Decree shall be drawn up accordingly. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 97
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss. 34, 37(1)(c).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.