Only 2 Days Left Of 90-Day Restraint, Karnataka HC Dismisses Appeals Against Interim Order In Arbitration Case

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed three appeals challenging an interim restraint on dealings with a property in Bengaluru Rural District, holding that there was no point examining the challenges when only two days remained before the 90-day protection was due to expire.

A Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan, in an order dated September 11, noted that the restraint imposed by the Commercial Court on June 15 would expire on September 13.

The bench, therefore, held that the appeals had “lost implication”.

“This order is dated 15.06.2026. 90 days is expiring on 13.09.2026 and therefore, these appeals have lost implication. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed.”

The appeals challenged the Commercial Court's June 15 order restraining the respondents from alienating, encumbering or creating third-party interests in the property. The property comprises 43 acres 37 guntas at Kugonahalli Village, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.

The restraint was imposed for 90 days from June 15, 2026, or until the arbitral tribunal became functional, whichever was earlier.

The High Court did not examine the merits of the challenge. It clarified that if the Commercial Court extended the interim protection, the appellants could revive their appeals.

The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Understanding dated June 24, 2024, concerning the property. Maarq Spaces and Properties LLP claimed that its designated partners had entered into the MoU with C. Narayanaswamy and three other landowners.

The MoU contemplated a part-joint-development and part-sale arrangement. According to Maarq Spaces, an Addendum executed on April 16, 2025 converted the arrangement into an agreement for absolute sale of the entire property.

Maarq Spaces claimed that ₹6.15 crore had been paid as advance and part consideration. It also claimed that 2 acres 16 guntas had been registered in favour of its designated partners.

It alleged that portions of the property were subsequently sold to other purchasers, who entered into Joint Development Agreements with Manyata Developers Private Limited.

Maarq Spaces invoked arbitration and approached the Commercial Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It sought protection against further alienation, encumbrance, and creation of third-party interests in the property.

The Commercial Court found a prima facie case in its favour and held that the balance of convenience also lay in its favour. It consequently imposed the 90-day restraint.

The order was challenged before the High Court through three connected commercial appeals under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

A.N. Srinivasa Reddy filed one appeal, while C. Narayanaswamy, Nagarathna, Akarsh N. and Rakshitha N. filed another. The third appeal was filed by Neerajakshulu T. and 14 others, including Manyata Developers Private Limited.

However, when the appeals came up before the High Court on September 11, only two days remained before the restraint was due to expire. The Bench therefore dismissed the appeals without examining the merits of the interim restraint.

For Appellant (A.N. Srinivasa Reddy): Senior Advocate Dhananjay Joshi, Advocate Prashanth Kumar S.T.

For Appellants (C. Narayanaswamy & Others): Advocate Angad Kamath.

For Appellants (Neerajakshulu T. & Others): Senior Advocate Dhananjay Joshi, Advocate Mariappa.

For Respondent (Maarq Spaces and Properties LLP): Advocate Chidananda P.