Writ Petition No. 17237 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20714 WP No. 17237 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17237 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.22, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT MR. DIGVIJAY SINGH. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI C.K.NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. BHARAT HI-TECCH BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.304 AND 306, 3RD FLOOR RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 025. 2. OSWAL MINERALS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20714 WP No. 17237 of 2025 HC-KAR HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.1034, 2ND FLOOR DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, 4TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 010. 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE SEVAKSHETRA, NO.14, GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 009. (BY SRI ARJUN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI DHRUV M.PATWARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI RAKSHITH R., ADVOCATE FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT, ORDER, RULE OR DIRECTION, SETTING ASIDE (I) THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2025, (ANNEXURE A) AND (II) THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2025 (ANNEXURE B), PASSED BY THE HONBLE COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH 83) IN SUIT IN COM. O. S. NO. 420/2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20714 WP No. 17237 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri C.K.Nandakumar, learned senior counsel for Sri Raghuram Cadambi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Arjun Rao, learned counsel for caveator / respondent No.1, Sri Dhruv M. Patwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Rakshith R., learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner - defendant No.3 in Commercial O.S.No.420/2025, is before this Court calling in question the orders of the concerned Court, dated 03.05.2025 and 13.06.2025. During the subsistence of the petition, certain subsequent developments are placed by a memo by the learned counsel representing the first respondent. 3. The memo reads as follows: “4. In the above circumstances, the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) submits that: a. The Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.1) may be bound by its own Memo and documents dated 13.06.2025 to the extent that it shall not obstruct at any point in time until delivery of the entire Suit - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20714 WP No. 17237 of 2025 HC-KAR Subject goods in favour of the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff). b. The Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) has no objection to the Respondent No.3 9Defendant No.2) i.e., Union Bank) making payment under the suit subject Letters of Credit in favour of the Petitioner (Defendant No.3) forthwith; c. I.A.No.2 and 3 filed by the Plaintiff before the Ld. Trial Court seeking temporary injunction restraining the respective banks from acting on the letters of Credit may be disposed of as withdrawn / not pressed. The Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) does not have any continuing grievance against the banks i.e., the Petitioner 9Defendant No.2) and Respondent Nos.3 (Defendant No.2), and they may be deleted from the array of parties to the Suit Com.O.S.No.420 of 2025. The Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) is craving liberty / reserving its rights to seek amendment of the Plaint, and prosecute the same against the Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.1).” The contents of memo would speak for itself. The issue that went before the Commercial Court was a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. In the crossfire, defendant Nos.2 and 3 appear to have been caught in the crossfire. Defendant No.3 is the present petitioner and defendant No.2 is the Union Bank of India. 4. The issue between plaintiff and defendant No.1 is concerning payment of certain amounts of release of the Letters of Credit (for short ‘LCs’). The parties to the lis appear - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20714 WP No. 17237 of 2025 HC-KAR to have resolved the dispute in the interregnum. A communication is made by defendant No.1 to the petitioner that it will not obstruct at any point in time, the delivery of the suit subject goods in favour of the plaintiff – first respondent. In that light, the plaintiff is now satisfied with the e-mail communication and would submit that the entire suit subject goods be handed over to the petitioners as found in the e-mail. The plaintiff should also have no objection to the defendant No.2 - Union Bank of India to make payments under the suit scheduled LCs’, which are in favour of defendant No.3 – the petitioner. The applications filed by the plaintiff - respondent No.1 are to be dismissed as withdrawn and consequently, the petitioner and respondent No.3 be deleted from the array of parties in Com.O.S.No.420/2025. The memo also reserves the right to seek amendment of the plaint and continue to prosecute the suit against defendant No.1 only. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 would confirm the contents of the memo and the e-mail that he has communicated to the plaintiff. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20714 WP No. 17237 of 2025 HC-KAR 6. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition by recording the contents of the memo as noted hereinabove. Therefore, the following:
Decision
ORDER a. The writ petition is disposed. b. The first defendant shall abide by the communication that he shall not obstruct the delivery of the entire suit subject goods in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no objection if the Union Bank of India making payment in favour of the petitioner - Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. c. The plaintiff is at liberty to file an application seeking deletion of defendant Nos.2 and 3 from the array of parties and is further reserved liberty to seek amendment of the plaint to prosecute the suit only against first defendant. d. Applications in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 are dismissed as withdrawn. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20714 WP No. 17237 of 2025 HC-KAR e. The concerned Court is at liberty to regulate its procedure bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT:SS