1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

WRIT PETITION NO. 27708 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SCARPE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,

(A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED

UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013),

E-MAIL: BAPUJI.SIMHADRI@SMPLIN.COM,

PHONE NO: 94554 41006,

FLAT NO.4B, RAMA CLASSIC 9,

SHILPI VALLEY, GAFOOR NAGAR, MADHAPUR,

HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 081,

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,

SHRI. S.V.BAPUJI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

2. SHRI. SATHISH BABU SANA,

S/O. LATE SHRI SANA SUBBA RAO,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

E-MAIL: SATISHSANA@GMAIL.COM,

PHONE NO: 6309996766

VILLA NO. 72, HILL RIDGE VILLAS, GACHIBOWLI,

BESIDE INDIAN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS,

HYDERABAD, TELANGANA -500 032.

3. SHRI. S.V.BAPUJI,

S/O. SATYANARAYANA S,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

E-MAIL: BAPUJI.SIMHADRI@GMAIL.COM,

PHONE : 9945541006,

H.NO. 301, SRINIVASAM,

KPHB, 6TH PHASE, KUKATPALLY,

HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 072.

4. SHRI. S.GURUJU,

S/O. G PRATAP KUMAR,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

2

E-MAIL: SASIBHUSHAN1111@GMAIL.COM,

PHONE: 9581201111,

FLAT NO.504, BLOCK-1, SWATHI HEIGHTS,

PRASHANT NAGAR COLONY, A S RAO NAGAR,

HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 062.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI.SANTOSH SAGAR KAPILAVAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LIMITED,

(A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED

UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)

E-MAIL : aiyappa.cb@in.ab-inbev.com,

PHONE N/A UNIT NO.301-302, DYNASTY BUSINESS

PARK 'B' WING, 3RD FLOOR, ANDHERI KURLA

ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST),

MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400 059.

2. EAST GODAVARI BREWERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,

(CURRENTLY UNDER CORPORATE INSOLVENCY

RESOLUTION PROCESS),

REPRESENTED BY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL,

E-MAIL: ip.caier@gmail.com

PHONE: 9248123333

4

TH

FLOOR, PLOT NO.12, PHASE III,

ROAD NO.82, JUBILEE HILLS,

HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500 033.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISS UE

A CERTIORARI OR AN ORDER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE

NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT

TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING No. NIL

DATED 30.07.2025 IN THE MATTER OF ANHEUSER BUSCH

INBEV INDIA LIMITED Vs EAST GODAVARI BREWERIES

PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS PASSED BY THE ARBITRAL

TRIBUNAL IN ANNEXURE-A FOR BEING ILLEGAL ARBITRARY

UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, ALONG WITH THE ATTENDANT

ACTIONS (2) ISSUE A MANDAMUS OR AN ORDER WRIT, OR

DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER

APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO

TAKE ON RECORD THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF

3

RESPONDENT No-1 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH

THE APPLICATION BEARING No.NIL DATED 10.07.2025 IN

ANNEXURE-J AND ADJUDICATE THE ARBITRATION

PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE OF LAW. (3) GRANT SUCH

OTHER RELIEF AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND FURTHER

ORDERS THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT

INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.09.2025, COMING ON FOR

‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY, JAYANT

BANERJI J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

AND

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This petition has been filed challenging an

order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in

the matter of Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited V.

East Godavari Breweries Private Limited & Ors .

Further, direction has been sought from the Arbitra l

Tribunal to take on record the Financial Statements of

Respondent No.1 filed by the petitioners along with the

application bearing No.Nil dated 10.07.2025 at

Annexure-J.

4

3. The petitioners are the respondents in the

aforesaid arbitration proceedings. The respondent

No.2/East Godavari Breweries Private Limited, is stated to

be undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution

proceedings. A Brewing Agreement was executed betwe en

SABMiller India Limited (now called Anheuser Busch InBev

India Ltd) and the respondent No.2 that is East Godavari

Breweries Private Limited. On 06.02.2015, for setting up

of a brewery in Chepuru Village, Andhra Pradesh, fo r

manufacturing and sale of bottled beers of the following

brands-Haywards 5000, Knock Out, Foster's, Royal

Challenge ("Core Brands"). The Brewing Agreement wa s

further modified on 08.05.2015. An advance sum was paid

to the respondent No.2, who was required to obtain

licenses/permission and set up the brewery.

4. On 11.11.2016, on account of SABMiller's

acquisition by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2

was asked to stop working on the project until furt her

instructions. Accordingly, all ongoing operations w ere

paused. After more than 20 months, on 03.08.2018, t he

respondent No.1 issued a notice for termination of the

5

Brewing Agreement to the respondent No.2 and

demanded the return of the advanced amount paid und er

the Brewing Agreement along with an interest of 18% .

The respondent No.2 denied the allegation made in t he

letter of termination by way of a reply dated 06.09.2018

and called upon the respondent No.1 to reimburse th e

expenditure incurred by the respondent No.2.

5. A notice of invocation of guarantee dated

23.08.2018 was issued to the petitioners on the allegation

that petitioners had agreed to guarantee the repayment of

advance, the alleged guarantee was denied. Thereaft er,

the Arbitration was invoked under the Brewing Agreement

by the respondent No.1 against the respondent No.2, and

the petitioners, though not being signatories/parties to the

Brewing Agreement, came to be added as parties to t he

arbitration proceedings in their capacity as allege d

guarantors.

6. In proceedings under Section 11 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by an order dated

31.03.2021, arbitrators were appointed by this Court. This

6

stood constituted with effect from 01.05.2021. On account

of the demise of an arbitrator, another arbitrator was

appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator.

7. The statement of claim was filed on 30.06.2021

along with 32 supporting documents. It is alleged t hat

thereafter, without the leave of the Arbitral Tribunal, on

20.08.2021 two additional documents were placed on

record. Lastly, on 03.09.2021, the respondent No.1-

claimant once again filed 4 additional documents in the

nature of financial statements of the respondent No .2,

without leave of the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 filed a

counter claim and the petitioners filed their statement of

defence. The pleadings were completed on 20.11.2021

and thereafter, the Arbitral Tribunal framed issues on

12.07.2022 which were modified by way of order of t he

Arbitral Tribunal dated 03.08.2022.

8. In the meanwhile, an application under Section

9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the

National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravathi, admitted an

application under Section 9 on 17.11.2021 and inter alia,

7

declared a moratorium. However, the Arbitral Tribunal, by

an order of 16.02.2022, held that the arbitration

proceedings would continue against the petitioners herein.

It is contended that in the light of the order of

16.02.2022, the burden of defending the claim of

respondent No.1 has now fallen on the petitioners, who

are stated to be the guarantors.

9. After the extension of the mandate of the

Arbitral Tribunal, dates were fixed for recording o f

evidence of the witnesses. Witnesses of the parties were

examined on multiple dates from 15.05.2025 to

04.07.2025.

10. During the cross-examination held on

15.05.2025 of the fact witnesses of respondent No.1 ,

certain questions were posed to the CW1, inter alia,

regarding the date of takeover of SABMiller by Anhe user

Busch InBev India Ltd., and the claims of responden t

No.1. It is stated that the CW-1 expressed his ignorance

in respect of most of the queries. Moreover, the ex pert

witness who testified as CW-2, filed a report in support of

8

the monetary claims of the respondent No.1, and his

cross-examination was held on 26.06.2025.

11. It is contended by the learned counsel that the

answers to the queries posed were evasive. It is

contended that though the CW-2 admitted having plac ed

reliance on the financial statements of respondent No.1 for

arriving at the computation of damages at the figure after

computation of the damages, however, the financial

statements were either filed by respondent No.1 or CW-2.

The petitioners then obtained the financial statements of

the respondent No.1, from the website of the Ministry of

Corporate Affairs.

12. The contention is that in view of the various

inconsistent and fallacious statements made by the CW1

and CW2, which could be established through the financial

statements, on 04.07.2025, the petitioners sought to file a

compilation of financial statements of the respondent No.1

for different periods of time, as Annexures R(2)-D1 1 to

R(2)-D13. Since the Arbitral Tribunal refused to accept the

same in the absence of an application to place thes e

9

documents on record, an application was filed by th e

petitioners seeking leave of the Arbitral Tribunal, under

the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil

Procedure,1908

1

for bringing those documents on record.

13. On 19.07.2025, the respondent No.1 filed its

reply to the application. By means of the impugned order,

that application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC has

been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has

relied upon the provision of Section 18 of the Act, 1996, to

contend that by rejecting the application for leave, the

Arbitral Tribunal has denied equality to the parties. It is

stated that additional documents were filed by the

claimant/respondent No.1 by means of e-mail and they

were accepted on record. However, when it came to t he

case of the petitioners, equal treatment was denied by

rejecting the aforesaid application.

14. Learned counsel has referred to certain

judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the Divis ion

Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of

1

CPC

10

Wadi V. Amilal and Others

2

and Sugandhi (Dead) by

Legal Representatives and Another V. R.Rajkumar,

Represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli

3

, , to

contend that procedural and technical hurdles ought not to

be allowed to come in the way of the Court while do ing

substantial justice, the Courts must lean towards d oing

substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and

technical violations.

15. A judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court

in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Agro Industries

Development Corporation Limited V. Murliwala

Agrotech Private Limited and Others

4

, which relates to

a matter arising out of the rejection of an applica tion

under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the CPC and Order VI R ule

17 of the CPC in arbitration proceedings, has also been

relied upon to contend that an amendment has to be

construed liberally and given the time frame of the

proceedings, the application for amendment/Order VI II

Rule 1A of the CPC was wrongly rejected.

2

(2015) 1 SCC 677

3

(2020) 10 SCC 706

4

2025 SCC Online MP 2360

11

16. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

of Bhaven Construction Through Authorised

Signatory Premjibhai K.Shah Vs . Executive Engineer,

Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and

Another

5

, has been relied upon to contend that the

instant case is one of those rare and exceptional cases in

which interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

may be made by this Court.

17. As it appears from the record of this petition ,

on an application moved under Section 11 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

6

by an order dated

31.03.2021 this Court appointed two retired judges of the

Supreme Court as arbitrators, who in turn nominated

another retired judge of the Supreme Court as the

presiding arbitrator. The Arbitral Tribunal stood

constituted with effect from 01.05.2021. However, on

account of demise of the presiding arbitrator, the

remaining arbitrators nominated another retired judge of

the Supreme Court as the presiding arbitrator.

5

(2022) 1 SCC 75

6

Act of 1996

12

18. The respondent No.1-claimant filed its

statement of claim on 30.06.2021 along with documen ts.

The petitioners filed their statement of defence and the

respondent No.2 filed a counter claim. The pleadings were

completed on 20.11.2021 and issues were framed on

12.07.2022 which were modified on 03.08.2022. On

account of expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal

under Section 29A of the Act 1996, an application w as

filed by the respondent No.1 before the Commercial Court

concerned, seeking extension of the mandate of the

Arbitral Tribunal, which application was allowed by an

order dated 10.09.2024 by the Commercial Court,

extending the mandate of the Tribunal by one year.

19. The witnesses of the parties were examined on

multiple dates from 15.05.2025 to 04.07.2025. It is stated

on behalf of the petitioners that during the cross-

examination of the CW-2, reliance was placed by the CW-

2 on certain financial statements of the respondent No.1

for arriving at the computation of damages. It is alleged

that no financial statements were filed either by t he

13

respondent No.1 or CW-2. Thereafter the petitioner s

obtained the financial statements of the respondent No.1

from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is

stated that on perusal of the financial statements it was

evident that the CW-1 and CW-2 had made various

inconsistent and fallacious statements which can be

established through the financial statements. Therefore,

on 04.07.2025, the petitioners sought to file a compilation

of financial statements of the respondent No.1 for the

period 01.04.2016 uptil 31.03.2019. This was refused to

be accepted by the Arbitral Tribunal in the absence of an

application to place on record these documents. Then, an

application was filed by the petitioners under Order VIII

Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure on 10.07.2025.

A reply was filed by the respondent No.1 and therea fter

the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 was passed.

20. The Arbitral Tribunal in its impugned order,

noted the issues framed by it on 12.07.2022 and the fact

that by that very order, it had directed the parties to file

lists of witnesses on or before 27.07.2022 and

simultaneously file affidavits of evidence of their witnesses

14

on 24.08.2022. The claimants and the respondents ( in

the arbitration) filed separate list of witnesses o n

01.08.2022 and 10.08.2022.

21. By an order of 03.08.2022, the Arbitral

Tribunal modified certain issues and framed an additional

issue.

22. Despite the Tribunal fixing certain dates in t he

months of October and November 2022 for recording

evidence of the parties, the same had to be deferre d

because substantial time was taken in deciding

applications of the petitioners, which came to be

dismissed by an order dated 16.12.2022. Even after

16.12.2022, the evidence of the parties could not b e

recorded, because the Resolution Professional appoi nted

by the National Company Law Tribunal had resigned f rom

the position of Resolutional Professional. Therefore, an

order dated 18.03.2023 was passed by the Tribunal f or

issuance of notice to the Director of the respondent No.2.

23. It is noted in the order that thereafter, for

extension of time of the Arbitral Tribunal, proceed ings

15

under Section 29A of the Act 1996 were required to be

taken. The claimant sent an email dated 18.09.2024 with

a request that the arbitral proceeding may be continued

from the stage of fixing the dates for recording evidence

because the Commercial Court had extended the manda te

of the Tribunal by 12 months. In view of a writ petition

filed before this Court, the arbitration proceedings were

deferred and the dates fixed were cancelled. On dismissal

of the writ petition by an order dated 06.02.2025 passed

by this Court, by an order dated 09.02.2025, the Tribunal

fixed 14.05.2025 to 19.05.2025 for recording evidence of

the parties.

24. On 09.05.2025, the claimant sent an email

enclosing an application for substitution of Sri. Aiyappa

C.B., as witness in place of Sri. Karthikeya Raval whose

evidence affidavit had been filed on 07.09.2022. T he

application, for want of any reply, was allowed by the

Tribunal by an order 13.05.2025. Thereafter, statem ents

of the witnesses of the parties were recorded in th e

meetings of the Tribunal on several dates between

15.05.2025 and 04.07.2025. On 04.07.2025, dates we re

16

fixed in the months of September and October for hearing

final arguments.

25. An e-mail dated 10.07.2025 was sent by the

counsel for the petitioners enclosing the aforesaid

application under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the CPC for

bringing on record the financial statements. The

contention on behalf of the petitioners before the Tribunal

was that the witnesses of the claimant CW-1 and CW- 2

had made false and incorrect statements regarding t he

date of take over of SABMiller by the claimant and sales in

Andhra Pradesh. The financial statements were requi red

for demonstrating the inconsistencies in the statem ents

made by the witnesses of the claimant.

26. It was argued on behalf of the claimants that

the financial statements have no bearing on the merits of

the pleaded case of the parties. Moreover the fina ncial

statements of the claimants had been uploaded in th e

website of the Ministry of Corporal Affairs in the relevant

financial years and were very much available to the

petitioners before filing of the statements of defence and

17

commencement of the exercise for recording of evide nce.

Moreover, no question was put to CW-1 or CW-2 to

demonstrate that there was any discrepancy or

inconsistency in their affidavits and the financial

statements of the claimant.

27. The application was opposed by the claimant.

It was stated that after the stage of cross-examina tion

was over, the parties cannot be allowed to file additional

documents. It was further stated that the documents

sought to be filed were well within the knowledge a nd

possession of the defendants and there can be no

justification for filing the same after several years of filing

the statement of defence. Inconsistencies in the

statements of the CW-1 and CW-2, if any, should hav e

been brought forth during the stage of cross-examination

and as such, the documents are to be filed only as an

after thought with the intention to cure the gaps in the

cross-examination of the claimant’s witnesses.

28. The Arbitral Tribunal noticed the provisions o f

Order VIII Rule 1A CPC and the provisions of Sections 18,

18

19 and 23 of the Act of 1996 and considered the pur port

of the same. It was observed that the procedural o rder

No.1 dated 18.05.2021 did not reflect that the Trib unal

had on the basis of agreement reached between the

parties decided to follow the principles underlined the

provisions of the CPC. It was held that after completion of

the exercise for recording of evidence, there was no legal

justification to entertain the prayer made in the

application. It was held that the financial statements for

that period had been filed by the claimant with the

Registrar of Companies as part of its statutory obligation

and the same was available on the website of the Ministry

of Corporate Affairs and the financial statements w ere

obtained from the website. However, neither was it stated

in the application nor was it demonstrated that they were

not aware of the financial statements of the claimant for

that period, till the filing of the statement of defence, filing

of affidavit of evidence by the parties and cross-

examination of the witnesses. It was further obser ved

that the respondents in the arbitration had failed to

disclose as to when they obtained those financial

19

statements from the website of the Ministry of Corporate

Affairs. The evidence affidavit of the witnesses o f the

parties were filed on 07.09.2022 and the witnesses were

cross-examined on various dates in the months of Ma y

and June 2025. It was held that in the absence of any

contrary averment in the application, it was reasonable to

presume that the respondents in the arbitration were very

much in the know of the financial statements of the

claimants at the time of filing the statement of defence,

framing the issues and filing of the evidence affidavits of

their witnesses or at least at the stage of cross-

examination of the CW-1 and CW-2 in the months of M ay

and June 2025. They had not offered any explanation as

to why the witnesses of the claimant were not confronted

with these documents to demonstrate any discrepancy or

inconsistency or falsehood in their evidence affidavits or

the answers given in reply to the questions put in cross-

examination. It was also held that none of the iss ues

framed had anything to do with the date of take ove r of

SABMiller by Anheuser Busch InBev of sales in And hra

Pradesh and in cross-examination no question was pu t to

20

CW.1 and CW.2 on these points. The parties are see king

adjudication on the legality of termination of the Brewing

Agreement by the claimant, legality of the guarante es

furnished by respondent nos. 2 to 5 (petitioners herein)

in the arbitration and their liability as guarantors to the

transaction between the claimant and the respondent

under the Brewing Agreement.

29. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

30. The judgments that are cited by the learned

counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention are

not applicable in the facts and circumstances of th e

instant case. The Arbitral Tribunal has exhaustively dealt

with the relevant aspects of the matter and has arrived at

correct findings while dismissing the application of the

petitioners under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC. Given the

mandate of the Supreme Court, in the case of Deep

Industries Limited Vs. ONGC

7

and in Bhaven

Construction (supra), we find no jurisdictional error in

the impugned order of the Arbitral Tribunal that wo uld

7

( 2020) 15 SCC 706

21

merit interference. Even otherwise, the aforesaid writ

petition is filed before us sitting in a Division Bench

seeking issuance of writs of certiorari and mandamu s

which cannot be said to be a petition under Article 227 of

the Constitution.

31. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

(JAYANT BANERJI)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(UMESH M ADIGA)

JUDGE

PK/KGR