Scribd
Upload
108 views1 page

This Product Is Licensed To: NAVEEN BANNINTHAYA P R ADVOCATE

1. Ganiga Earth Movers filed a suit seeking recovery of money against DBM Geotechnics and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. that was dismissed as not maintainable and the plaintiff was directed to pursue arbitration. 2. Ganiga Earth Movers filed an application seeking a refund of the court fees paid, which was dismissed. Ganiga Earth Movers filed this writ petition challenging that order. 3. The High Court set aside the order dismissing the application for a refund of court fees. It directed the trial court to refund the court fees to the plaintiff based on a previous Supreme Court judgment in a similar case.

Uploaded by

abhishekkome
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
108 views1 page

This Product Is Licensed To: NAVEEN BANNINTHAYA P R ADVOCATE

1. Ganiga Earth Movers filed a suit seeking recovery of money against DBM Geotechnics and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. that was dismissed as not maintainable and the plaintiff was directed to pursue arbitration. 2. Ganiga Earth Movers filed an application seeking a refund of the court fees paid, which was dismissed. Ganiga Earth Movers filed this writ petition challenging that order. 3. The High Court set aside the order dismissing the application for a refund of court fees. It directed the trial court to refund the court fees to the plaintiff based on a previous Supreme Court judgment in a similar case.

Uploaded by

abhishekkome
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

10/4/23, 9:36 AM Ganiga Earth Movers VS DBM Geotechnics And Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

This product is Licensed to : NAVEEN BANNINTHAYA P R; ADVOCATE

2022 4 KCCR 3246; 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 982;

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


E.S.Indiresh, J.
Ganiga Earth Movers - Appellant
Versus
Dbm Geotechnics And Constructions Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2 of 2021 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 05-04-2022

Advocates appeared : K.Shobha, Advocate

JUDGMENT

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiff in Com.OS No.1 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru challenging the order dtd. 1/10/2020 dismissing the
interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff seeking refund of the Court fee.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are that the plaintiff has filed suit against the
defendants in Com.OS No.1 of 2020 seeking recovery of money and the said suit came to be disposed of by
order dtd. 7/2/2020 as the suit is not maintainable and consequently, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to
exhaust the remedy available under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). In the said suit, the plaintiff has paid the court fee and since the suit came to
be disposed of as not maintainable, the plaintiff has filed an application as per Annexure-E seeking refund of
court fee. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by impugned order 1/12/2020 dismissed
the application and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has presented this Writ Petition.

3. Sri Ravishankar Shastry G, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit came to be
disposed of reserving liberty to the plaintiff to approach the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Act as the
suit is not maintainable and therefore, the trial Court ought to have refunded the court fee to the plaintiff. In
this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SLP(C) No.18102 of 2013
decided on 25/10/2019 produced at Annexure-F to the writ petition and contended that the the trial Court
ought to have refunded the court fee to the plaintiff.

4. Smt. K. Shobha, learned High Court Government Pleader, supported the impugned order.

5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and
the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned case, I am of the view hat the trial
Court ought to have refunded entire court fee to the petitioner/plaintiff, as the trial Court has come to a
conclusion that the suit is not maintainable and relegated the plaintiff to approach Arbitrator in terms of the
arbitration clause in the agreement. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the impugned order dtd.
1/10/2020 is liable to be set aside and IA.I in filed Com.OS No.1 of 2020 is allowed and the trial Court is
directed to refund the court fee to the plaintiff after due identification. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.

about:blank 1/1

You might also like