Karnataka High Court
COMAP/574/2025 of K. A. RAGHAVENDRA Vs SMT. RAJAMMA on 18 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010702592025 NC: 2026:KHC:44100-DB COMAP No. 574 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2025 BETWEEN: K.A.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
K.A. RAGHAVENDRA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O SRI. K.N. ASHWATHANARAYANA RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.760, 'KRISHNA', 1ST MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 078.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. RAJAMMA
W/O SRI NARAYAN DAS,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
2.
M.N. DHARMAVRATHA,
S/O SRI NARAYAN DAS,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
3.
M.N. PRIYA DATTA,
S/O SRI NARAYAN DAS,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
4.
M.N. SHARANARTHI,
S/O SRI NARAYAN DAS,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by C K LATHA
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
5.
M.N. PARANJYOTHI,
S/O SRI NARAYAN DAS,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
6.
SMT. M.N. GAYATHRI DARSHINI,
D/O SRI NARAYAN DAS,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
7.
SMT. M.N. THEJASWINI,
D/O SRI NARAYAN DAS,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
8.
SMT. M.N. DIVYA DARSHINI,
D/O SRI NARAYAN DAS,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
POORNA HORTICULTURE,
2ND MAIN, 47TH CROSS,
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 082.
9.
SMT. BHAGYA,
W/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1573, K.R. ROAD,
VIDYANAGAR, MANDYA - 571 401.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-
A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT READ WITH SECTION 9 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2025 PASSED IN THE SAID
COMMERCIAL A.A.NO.420/2024 PASSED BY LXXXV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37
(1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] impugning an order dated 01.09.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Com. A.A 420/2024. By the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court had dismissed the appellant's application filed under Section 9 of the A&C Act seeking interim measures for protection.
2. The appellant had sought an order restraining the respondents from creating any rights in the schedule properties, for raising any construction or altering the nature till conclusion of the arbitral proceedings.
3. The learned Commercial Court dismissed the said application, inter alia on the ground that the appellant had not made out a prima facie case; His application was premised on a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.04.2007 which was
HC-KAR
unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The notice issued by the appellant was after an inordinate delay.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that an arbitral proceedings has since commenced and the impugned order may prejudice the appellant in the arbitral proceedings and preclude him from claiming any interim measures of protection.
5. It is well settled that an order under Section 9 of the A&C Act is merely an interim order and the observations made therein would not be binding on the Arbitral Tribunal. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. This observation, however, would not preclude the appellant from approaching the Arbitral Tribunal claiming such relief including interim relief as may be advised.
6. Pending application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2