M/S. RAKESH REXINE HOUSE vs M/S. DUROFLEX PRIVATE LIMITED,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58131-DB
W.P. No.21347 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010470722026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
WRIT PETITION NO.21347 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. RAKESH REXINE HOUSE
NO.468, MINT STREET
CHENNAI - 600 079
MAYUR KUMAR S/O ASHOK KUMAR.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. AYUSSHI AGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR
MS. SHIVANI SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. DUROFLEX PRIVATE LIMITED
ST
OFFICE AT #508, 1 FLOOR
TH TH
6 CROSS, 6 MAIN
ST BED LAYOUT
TH
KORAMANGALA 4 BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 034
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA H., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION, CALLING FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.04.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL IN I.A No.4 IN A.C. No.162/2024, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
IA No.4 IN A.C. No.162/2024 BY PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO
SUMMON AND EXAMINE THE RETAILERS/VENDORS NAMED THEREIN
AS WITNESSES IN THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS & ETC.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58131-DB
W.P. No.21347 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010470722026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Sri. Manjunatha H., learned counsel accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. This petition is filed seeking to assail the order
dated 22.04.2026 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in I.A. No.4 in
A.C. No.162/2024. By the order sought to be challenged, the
learned Tribunal has rejected the I.A. filed by the claimant
1
under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
to summon 11 persons as witnesses.
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the witnesses were required to be present before the
Tribunal so as to confront them with the invoices marked as
1
the Act

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58131-DB
W.P. No.21347 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010470722026
Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. It is stated that given the nature of the
dispute that is referred before the Tribunal, it is essential that
those witnesses be examined.
5. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal reflects that
issues were framed on 21.02.2025. In the claim statement, the
claimant had averred that the respondent has unilaterally
terminated the agreement. It was observed that if the party
wants somebody to be examined as a witness and a direction is
required to this effect by the Tribunal, it has to file an
application under Section 27 of the Act. No such application
under Section 27 of the Act was filed in the case. The order
thereafter reads as under:
"In the present case, the records would disclose that
the 11 persons whom the claimant wants to be
examined as witnesses had been arrayed as
respondents in the petition filed under Section 11 of
the Act in CMP 617/2022. The Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka did not issue notices to them. Liberty
reserved by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
favour of the claimant herein to file appropriate
application to seek impleadment of these 11 witnesses
as respondent Nos.2 to 12 as additional parties to the
suit.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58131-DB
W.P. No.21347 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010470722026
An application had been filed before this Tribunal to
implead these 11 persons as respondents 2 to 12 as
the additional respondents in the present case.
The said application came to be disposed of on
18.12.2024 rejecting the said application. While
rejecting the said application, the earlier arbitrator has
observed that the claimant can examine them as
witnesses. On the basis of the said observation,
present application is filed.
The observation so made on 18.12.2024 does not
mean that the moment an application is filed to
summon as them witnesses must be allowed. As
argued by the learned counsel for the respondent the
purpose for which the claimant wants 11 persons to
be summoned as witnesses, is to confront the marked
documents, i.e., invoices, email communications and
correspondences and other documents to them. These
invoices, email communications and correspondences
have already been got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 on
its behalf.
The proprietor of the firm who is stated to be
conversant with the facts of the case is not examined
in this case. On the other hand, his father is examined
as PW1 on the ground that he is conversant with the
facts of the case. Whether his father's version can be
believed or not is the matter to be decided after

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58131-DB
W.P. No.21347 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010470722026
hearing arguments. Suffice to state that the
documents which the claimant wants to got confronted
to these witnesses are already got marked by his
father while leading his evidence. Taking into
consideration, the stand taken by the claimant before
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and before this
Tribunal with regard to the impleadment of them as
respondents both before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka and before this Tribunal and the rejection
of the request of the claimant to implead them and in
the light of documents being already got marked by
PW1, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that
there are no merits in the application filed by the
claimant to summon these witnesses. The application
is not maintainable in law or on facts and hence IA is
liable to be rejected.
ORDER
a) IA filed by the claimant under Section 19 of
the Act to summon 11 persons shown in the
application as witnesses stands rejected.
b) The cost of this application will follow cost
under Section 31A of the Act.
Claimant had been given 20 days time to inform the
Tribunal as to whether it would intend to examine any
witness on its behalf within 20 days from 20.01.2026.
In the light of the rejection of this application, it is

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58131-DB
W.P. No.21347 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010470722026
treated that claimant has no further evidence. Hence,
case is posted for the evidence of the respondent."
(emphasis supplied)
6. On record is the order dated 20.01.2026 which is
filed as Annexure - R3 to the statement of objections filed by
the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that 20 days time was given by the Tribunal. The
order reads that, if for any reason the claimant does not intend
to examine any witness on its behalf, the same shall be
intimated within 20 days from that day. Learned counsel for
the petitioner states that the application was filed on
23.02.2026.
7. Though in arbitration proceedings, given the
provision of Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, the Arbitral Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil
Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act, it is noted that there was
due consideration of the application by the Arbitral Tribunal and
it was rejected accordingly.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58131-DB
W.P. No.21347 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010470722026
2
8. In the case of Nivedita Sharma v COAI , the
Supreme Court held that it is a settled law that when a
statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a
writ petition should not be entertained, ignoring statutory
dispensation.
3
Deep Industries v. ONGC
9. In the case of after
considering the provisions of the Arbitration Act, it was held
that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution against judgments allowing or dismissing first
appeals, it was held as follows:
"16 . Most significant of all is the non obstante clause
contained in Section 5 which states that notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law, in matters that
arise under Part I of the Arbitration Act, no judicial
authority shall intervene except where so provided in this
Part. Section 37 grants a constricted right of first appeal
against certain judgments and orders and no others.
Further, the statutory mandate also provides for one bite
at the cherry, and interdicts a second appeal being filed
[ see Section 37(2) of the Act].
17 . This being the case, there is no doubt whatsoever
that if petitions were to be filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution against orders passed in appeals
2
(2011) 14 SCC 337
3
(2020) 15 SCC 706

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58131-DB
W.P. No.21347 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010470722026
under Section 37, the entire arbitral process would be
derailed and would not come to fruition for many years.
At the same time, we cannot forget that Article 227 is a
constitutional provision which remains untouched by the
non obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these
circumstances, what is important to note is that though
petitions can be filed under Article 227 against
judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under
Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be
extremely circumspect in interfering with the same,
taking into account the statutory policy as adumbrated
by us hereinabove so that interference is restricted to
orders that are passed which are patently lacking in
inherent jurisdiction .”
10. In the case of Bhaven Construction v. Executive
4
Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd . after noting
the provisions of the Arbitration Act, and the judgments of the
Supreme Court, it was observed that it is prudent for a judge to
not exercise discretion to allow judicial interference beyond the
procedure established under the enactment. This power needs
to be exercised in exceptional rarity, wherein one party is left
remediless under the statute or "bad faith" shown by one of the
parties. This high standard set by this Court is in terms of the
4
(2022) 1 SCC 75

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58131-DB
W.P. No.21347 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010470722026
legislative intention to make the arbitration fair and efficient.
The Supreme Court observed as follows:
"21. Viewed from a different perspective, the
arbitral process is strictly conditioned upon time
limitation and modelled on the “principle of
unbreakability”. This Court in P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok
Kumar (2019) 13 SCC 445 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 773]
observed : (SCC p. 459, paras 36-37)
“36.3. Third, Section 34(3) reflects the principle of
unbreakability. Dr Peter Binder in International
Commercial Arbitration and Conciliation
NCITRAL
in U Model Law Jurisdictions, 2nd Edn., observed:
‘An application for setting aside an award can
only be made during the three months following the
date on which the party making the application has
received the award. Only if a party has made a
request for correction or interpretation of the award
under Article 33 does the time-limit of three months
begin after the tribunal has disposed of the request.
This exception from the three month time-limit was
subject to criticism in the working group due to fears
that it could be used as a delaying tactics. However,
although “an unbreakable time-limit for applications
for setting aside” was sought as being desirable for
the sake of “certainty and expediency” the prevailing
view was that the words ought to be retained “since
they presented the reasonable consequence of
Article 33.’
According to this “unbreakability” of time-limit and
true to the “certainty and expediency” of the arbitral
awards, any grounds for setting aside the award that
emerge after the three month time-limit has expired
cannot be raised.
37. Extending Section 17 of the Limitation Act would
go contrary to the principle of “unbreakability” enshrined
under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act.”

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58131-DB
W.P. No.21347 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010470722026
If the courts are allowed to interfere with the arbitral
process beyond the ambit of the enactment, then the
efficiency of the process will be diminished.
11. In view of the aforesaid, and the provisions of
Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, we do not find that this is a fit case for interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution. This petition is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(N.V.BHAVANI)
JUDGE
KG
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2