Mr. Mohammed Akram Saheb vs Mr. Alhaj Abdul Subhan Saheb on 30 January, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr. Mohammed Akram Saheb vs Mr. Alhaj Abdul Subhan Saheb on 30 January, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 912

Bench: B.Veerappa

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

                       BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA


                CMP NO. 145 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1.     MR. MOHAMMED AKRAM SAHEB
       S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFOOR
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
       R/AT TIPPUNAGAR, CHANNAPATANA TOWN
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160

2.     MR ALLAH BAKASH
       S/O FAQRUDDIN SAHEB
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
       R/AT SHAHI TIPPU NAGAR MOHALLA
       CHANNAPATANA TOWN
       RAMNAGAR DISTRICT-562160

                                      ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     MR. ALHAJ ABDUL SUBHAN SAHEB
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
       S/O LATE ALHAJ ABDUL JALLEEL SAHEB
       R/AT NO.73 NEW EXTENSION MOHALLA
       NEXT TO MASJID-E-QUBA
       BEHIND RAILWAY STATION
       RAMANAGARAM-562160
                              2



2.     MR MOHAMMED ISMAIL SIDDIQUI
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
       S/O LATE ABDUL QUDDUS SIDDIQUI
       R/AT NO.383 & 384
       IQRA PUBLIC ENGLISH SCHOOL
       SYED WADI, CHANNAPATNA-562160

                                        ...RESPONDENTS


      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
11(4)(a) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT PRE-DECIDED SOLE
ARBITRATOR NAMELY 'SHOORA OF MASJID BANGLA
WALI HAZRATH NIZAMUDDIN, DELHI' AS MENTIONED
IN ANNEXURE-A, DATED:27.01.2000 AT CLAUSE XVII,
TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS
THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

    THIS CMP COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed under the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of Annexure-

"A".

2. The Office has raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition as under:

""The advocate for the petitioner has filed the above Civil Misc.Petition Under Sec. 11(4)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation act 1996 praying this Hon'ble Court to appoint pre-decided sole Arbitrator namely 'SHOORA OF MASJID BANGLA WALI HAZRATH NIZAMUDDIN, DELHI' as mentioned in Annexure-A, dated:27.01.2000 at Clause XVII, to resolve the dispute between the parties and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

3. Clause XVII of the Deed of Declaration of Trust reads as under:

"XVII.Arbitration:

If any dispute arises between the Trustees or any members of the Trust the same shall be referred to the SHOORA of MASJID BANGLA WALI HAZRATH NIZAMUDDIN, DELHI who shall be the sole arbitrator and any decision given by them shall be final and binding on all the Trustees."

4. The arbitration clause specifically states that if any dispute arises between the Trustees or any members of the Trust the same shall be referred to the SHOORA of MASJID BANGLA WALI HAZRATH NIZAMUDDIN, DELHI, who shall be the sole arbitrator and any decision given by them shall be final and binding on all the Trustees. In view of the above, the present civil miscellaneous petition filed before this Court is not maintainable. My view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brahmani River Pellets Limited .vs. Kamachi Industries Limited reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 929 wherein at Paragraph 18 it is held as under:

"18. Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such Court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and parties intended to exclude all other courts. In the present case, the parties have agreed that the "venue" of arbitration shall be at Bhubaneswar. Considering the agreement of the 5 parties having Bhubaneswar as the venue of arbitration, the intention of the parties is to exclude all other courts. As held in Swastik, non-use of words like "exclusive jurisdiction", "only", "exclusive", "alone" is not decisive and does not make any material difference."

Accordingly, the office objection is upheld.

5. Consequently, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Sd/-

JUDGE *alb/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court