Bangalore District Court M/S Sri Sai Enterprises vs M/S Multi Coats In on 31 March, 2022 1 Com.A.P 84/2021 IN THE COURT OF LXXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (EXCLUSIVE DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) AT BENGALURU (CCH.88) THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH 2022 PRESENT: SRI.CHANDRASHEKHAR U., B.Sc., LL.M., LXXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. Com.A.P.No. 84/2021 PLAINTIFF: M/s Sri Sai Enterprises, No. C310, 9th Cross, 3rd Main, 1st Stage, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru 560 058 Represented by its Proprietor Mrs P.N. Hemanalini (Reptd by Mr. SDB Adv) AND DEFENDANT : M/s Multi Coats In. Shed No.3, Plot No. 5/1, Karihobanahalli Main Road, Karihobanahalli, Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru 560 058 Represented by its Director, Sri. Balakrishna M. (Reptd by Mr. AT Adv) 2 Com.A.P 84/2021 Date of Institution of the 29.10.2021 suit Nature of the suit (suit on pronote, suit for declaration & Possession, Suit for Arbitration Petition injunction etc.) Date of commencement of recording of evidence Date on which judgment was pronounced 31 .03.2022 Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s 00 05 02 (CHANDRASHEKHAR U), LXXXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive dedicated Commercial Court) Bengaluru. JUDGMENT The plaintiff has filed the above petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter called as 'the Act') for setting aside the arbitration award dated, 8th July 2021, passed in A.C. No.204/2019 by learned Arbitrator Sri. Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri and to allow the counter claim to the tune of Rs.24,70,000/. 3 Com.A.P 84/2021 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as hereunder: M/s Tenovo India Private Limited, now, Delkor India, known as enduser, placed the purchase order to the defendant M/s Multi Coats Inc., for erection of painting and blasting booth, vide purchase order No.3750000217, dated 6.4.2017 for total amount of Rs.64 lakhs. Further, the defendant informed the Tenova their inability to perform the purchase order to erect painting and blasting booth by letter dated 18.9.2018. Due to the financial constraint of the defendant, it requested M/s Tenovo India Private Limited to transfer the purchase order to the plaintiff and earnestly requested defendant to be treated as sub contractor to the plaintiff and promised to fulfill the obligation of erecting and completing the painting and blasting booths. M/s Tenovo India Private Limited requested the plaintiff to perform purchase order by financing to execute the erection of painting and blasting booths along with the defendant. It is specifically 4 Com.A.P 84/2021 submitted that since, the plaintiff is having long business relation with M/s Tenovo India Private Limited for the supply of industrial paints, accepted the purchase order bearing No. 3750000275, dated, 20.11.2017 for Rs.64 lakhs. The plaintiff only financed the defendant as requested and there is no contract between them and therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to pay any amount and though, it is contended before the learned Arbitrator that M/s Tenovo India Private Limited is necessary party, which placed the order through the plaintiff and financed the same and therefore, the award is liable to be set aside. The plaintiff has also placed the purchase order Ex.R4 by M/s Tenovo India Private Limited for Rs.64 lakhs, in turn the plaintiff had placed the purchase order to the defendant as per Ex.R5, for lump sum price Rs.59 lakhs. The difference amount of Rs.5 lakhs was the profit to the plaintiff for financing for the contract. It is further stated that after the defendant erection of paint booth and it is the plaintiff who invested the funds for execution of the paint and blasting 5 Com.A.P 84/2021 booth as required by M/s Tenovo India