Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

Karnataka High Court Hears Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration Act Against Dismissal of Section 34 Petition in Joint Development Dispute. Developer Challenged Dismissal of Challenge to Arbitral Award Regarding Revocation of Power of Attorney and Ownership Rights in Constructed Property.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
Admin
2026-08-11 22:54:52
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

KAHC010279392020_1

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (02) 36

MFA No. 4022/2020 (AA)

2025-02-21

H.P. Sandesh

Sri. Ravishankar S. (Appellant), Smt. Syeda Shehnaz for Sri. V. Balakrishna (Respondents 1 and 2)

M/S. NAJ PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS

Mrs. Neelufar, Mrs. Nishat Modi, Ms. Nabila Jabir, Ms. Naalia Jabir, Ms. Aaliya Jabir, Mr. B.Shivalingegowda

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the dismissal of a petition under Section 34 seeking to set aside an arbitral award.

Remedy Sought

Appellant (claimant in arbitration) sought declaration that power of attorney was irrevocable, revocation was void, sale deed was valid, absolute ownership of schedule C & D properties; alternatively, direction to execute sale deed; partition of schedule B properties; permanent injunction. In the appeal, seeks to set aside the lower court order and the arbitral award.

Filing Reason

Respondents 1 and 2 revoked the power of attorney and challenged the sale deed executed by the appellant, leading to arbitration; arbitrator passed award, appellant's Section 34 petition dismissed, hence appeal.

Previous Decisions

Arbitral award dated 05.01.2017 in A.C.No.114/2014; City Civil Court order dated 04.09.2020 in A.S.No.46/2017 dismissing Section 34 petition.

Judgment Excerpts

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying this Court to set aside the order passed in A.S.No.46/2017 dated 04.09.2020, on the file of the 20th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-32) and consequently to set aside the award passed in A.C.No.114/2014 dated 05.01.2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator at Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bangalore In exercise of the powers given to it under the power of attorney dated 17.01.2004, the claimant executed a sale deed on 08.09.2011 in favour of itself i.e., Jabir Asghar to convey himself the ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties and consequently, got the khata of that property also changed to his name.

Procedural History

Claimant filed statement of claim before arbitrator seeking declarations and other reliefs; respondent filed objections and counter claim; Arbitral Tribunal passed award on 05.01.2017. Aggrieved, appellant filed A.S.No.46/2017 under Section 34 before XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which was dismissed on 04.09.2020. Hence this appeal under Section 37.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34, Section 37(1)(c)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Joint Development Agreement Power of Attorney Revocation Specific Performance Section 34 Petition Section 37 Appeal Constructed Property Ownership Arbitral Award Challenge

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay Hears Second Appeal on Section 53A Transfer of Property Act in Agricultural Land Possession Suit. Question Raised Whether Defendants Can Claim Protection of Part Performance Without Specific Pleading Despite Past Ag... 2026-08-11 22:54:52
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Injunction in Property Dispute — Finds No Prima Facie Case for Restraining Construction on Non-Common Area. Court holds that disputed property was not part of common amenities and society failed to prove excl... 2026-08-11 22:54:52
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition natural justice acquittal murder Compensation Burden of Proof Limitation benefit of doubt Article 226 Circumstantial Evidence
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

Bombay High Court Accepts State Undertaking in Contempt Petition; Directs Committee to Rev...

Bombay High Court Passes Judgment on Interim Application and Contempt Petition Arising fro...

Supreme Court Enhances Child Maintenance and Grants Interim Medical Maintenance to Wife in...

Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. Objections...

Supreme Court Allows Agriculturists' Appeal for Enhanced Compensation; Condones Delay Usin...

Supreme Court Upholds Defendant in Property Sale Deed Dispute; Non-Payment of Balance Cons...

Supreme Court Directs Deeper SIT Probe and Enforces State Compliance in Jojari River Conta...

Lost Your Password?