Karnataka High Court
Smt D Nagarathna vs The Nilgiri Dairy Farm Private Ltd on 17 June, 2013
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
CMP.NO. 61/2010
BETWEEN:
Smt.D. Nagarathna
Wife of Sri. B. Puttaswamy
Housewife,
Aged 56 years
Residing at 2 (1st floor)
26th Cross, Kilari Road
Banagalore 560 053. ...Petitioner
(By M/s R I D'SA , Advocate)
AND:
The Nilgiri Dairy Farm Private Ltd.,
A company registered under
The companies Act 1956,
15 Rest House Crescent
Bangalore 560 001
Herein represented by its
Managing Director. .... Respondent
(By Sri S. Basavaraj, Advocate)
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under
Section.11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, praying to appoint a suitable single arbitrator to
decide the disputed issues between the parties, also
fixing the fee and time frame for completion of
-2-
proceedings, in consultation with the petitioner, in the
interest of justice and equity.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner and Respondent entered into Memorandum of Understanding as per Annexure-A dated 14.07.2007 for lease of immovable properties on rental basis. Clause F in the second part of the Memorandum of Understanding specifies that any dispute arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding shall be referred to an Arbitrator mutually agreed by the parties. In terms of this Memorandum of Understanding the parties have entered into an agreement of lease as per Annexure-B dated 10.10.2007. This agreement of lease do not provide for referring the dispute to an Arbitrator. On the other hand, clause 12 of the agreement of lease specifies that the dispute between the parties is subject to jurisdiction of the Court in Bangalore. -3-
2. Learned Counsel for the respondents contend that in the absence of specific Arbitration Clause, this Court cannot appoint Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. There is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. The agreement of lease, superseded the Memorandum of Understanding. However, it is open for the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Competent Civil Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 14, the petitioner is entitled to exclusion of the time consumed in prosecuting this writ petition. If that is so, it is open for the petitioner to take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, if he is so entitled.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR