Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Tata Consultancy Service Limited vs Sattva Developers Private Limited on 16 February, 2018

Author: Vineet Kothari

Bench: Vineet Kothari

                         1/8




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

                      BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

         CIVIL MISC. PETITION No.320/2017

BETWEEN:

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT,1956,AND
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE
AT TCS HOUSE,21,D.S.MARG,FORT,
MUMBAI-400 001, AND ITS BRANCH
OFFICE AT VYDEHI RC-1 BLOCK,
# 82,EPIP,WHITEFIELD,BANGALORE
560 066, KARNATAKA,INDIA,BANGALORE
REPRSENTED BY ITS DEPUTY
GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY SRI K A CHINNAPPA     ..PETITIONER

       (BY SRI GIRIDHAR S.V, ADV. FOR M/S.
                  GIRIDHAR & CO.)
AND:
1.     SATTVA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE
       LIMITED
       A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
       THE COMPANIES ACT,1956,
       HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR,SALARPURIA
       WINDSOR,NO.3,
       ULSOOR ROAD,BANGALORE-560 042
       BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
       MR BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL
                         Date of Order 16.02.2018 CMP.No.320/2017
                         Tata Consultancy Service Limited vs.
                       Sattva Developers Private Limited & others
                             2/8




2. M/S MAVERICK PROPERTY INVESTMENTS
   PRIVATE LIMITED,
  A COMPANY INCORPORATED
  UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,1956,HAVING
  ITS OFFICE AT NO.540,
  III FLOOR,CMH ROAD,
  INDIRANAGAR,BANGALORE-560 038
  BY ITS DIRECTOR MR B P KUMAR BABU,
  DIRECTOR

3.PARTH INFRAPROMOTOR LLP.,
  A BODY CORPORATE REGISTERED
  UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY
  PARTNERSHIP ACT,2008,
  HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FLAT #7,
  1ST FLOOR,PLOT NO.231,
  SRI NILAYAM BUILDING,OPPOSITE GTV
  STATION(KOLIWADA) SION (EAST)
  MUMBAI-400 022,
  REPRESENTED BY MR PRADEEP
  DHANDHANIA                 ... RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI NIKHILESH RAO, ADV. FOR R1,
     Ms.GAWRY COOTAIAH, ADV. FOR SRI ARUN
     KUMAR K., ADV. FOR R2,
     SRI BADRI VISHAL, ADV. FOR R3)

     This Civil Misc. Petition is filed Under Sec.11(6) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, praying to a.
Direct the appointment of Shri Justice N Venkatachal,
Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, or Shri Justice
V Jagannathan, Former Judge, High Court of
Karnataka, or Shri Dr. Justice N. Kumar, Former
Judge, High Court of Karnataka or Shri. Patri Basavana
Goud, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka as the
                            Date of Order 16.02.2018 CMP.No.320/2017
                            Tata Consultancy Service Limited vs.
                          Sattva Developers Private Limited & others
                                3/8

Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 13.1 of the Agreement
to enter upon reference and to adjudicate the dispute
between the Petitioner and the Respondents in terms of
the Agreement to sell dated 02.11.211 as at Annexure-
'A' and etc.

     This CMP coming under Orders this day, the
Court made the following:-

                            ORDER

Sri. Giridhar S.V, ADV. For M/s. Giridhar & Co., Adv. for the petitioner.

Sri Nikhilesh Rao, Adv. for R1, Ms.Gawry Cootaiah, Adv. for Sri Arun Kumar K, Adv. for R2.

Sri Badri Vishal, Adv. for R3.

The petitioner- TATA Consultancy Service Limited has filed this petition under Section 11(6) Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator by this Court on account of certain disputes arising between the petitioner-Company and three respondent- Companies who are party to the Agreement of sale Annexure-A dated 2.11.2011 under which petitioner- Company has agreed to sell land totally measuring 27 Date of Order 16.02.2018 CMP.No.320/2017 Tata Consultancy Service Limited vs. Sattva Developers Private Limited & others 4/8 acres and 10 guntas of land situated in Tubarahalli and Siddapura Villages of Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that for one reason or the other, respondent-Companies have failed to abide by the terms of the said agreement and to transfer the land in question in favour of the petitioner and on account of this failure, a dispute has arisen in terms of the said agreement. The petitioner has served the notice on the three respondents vide Annexure-B dated 25.5.2017 as well as Annexure-H dated 18.9.2017 for appointment of Arbitrator which have remained unresponded so far.

3. The learned counsels appearing for the respondent-Companies however submit that the complete documents are not furnished with the said petition and there were three more Agreements between the parties which do not contain any Arbitration Clause Date of Order 16.02.2018 CMP.No.320/2017 Tata Consultancy Service Limited vs. Sattva Developers Private Limited & others 5/8 and they should be permitted to bring on record the said aspects.

4. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 who is said to be subsidiary of respondent no.1-Company also prays for time to file statement of objections.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that scope under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Court is only with regard to appointment of Arbitrator, at this stage, only to look into existence of an arbitration clause and agreement between the parties as well as existence of an arbitral dispute between the parties.

6. The agreement to sell in question vide Annexure-A dated 2.11.2011 envisages transfer of the sale of land measuring 27 acres 10 guntas of land from respondents to petitioner-Company which has admitted. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the Date of Order 16.02.2018 CMP.No.320/2017 Tata Consultancy Service Limited vs. Sattva Developers Private Limited & others 6/8 advance payment received by the respondents has been refunded to the petitioner-Company.

7. It is also seen from the record that appointment of Arbitrator is provided in terms of the Arbitration Clause which is reproduced below:

"13.1 In the event of there being any dispute with regards to this Agreement to Sell or interpretation of any of the Clauses hereof, the same shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator. The arbitration shall be as per the provisions of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The venue of Arbitration shall be Bangalore only and the language and proceedings shall be English only."

8. The notice was also served upon the respondents which has also remained unresponded.

9. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion in view of failure of the parties to abide by the arbitration clause, an arbitrator deserves to be appointed in terms Date of Order 16.02.2018 CMP.No.320/2017 Tata Consultancy Service Limited vs. Sattva Developers Private Limited & others 7/8 of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

10. Both the learned counsel for the parties agree to the name of Mr.Justice Patri Basavana Goud, a Former Judge of this Court to act as sole Arbitrator in the present case.

11. The Misc.Petition is therefore allowed by appointing Mr.Justice Patri Basavana Goud, a former Judge of this Court, to act as an Arbitrator in the present case with a request to him to proceed with the arbitration in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

12. All the contentions and claims/counter claims on merits by both the parties are kept open, to be determined by the learned Arbitrator.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the Arbitration Centre, Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for Date of Order 16.02.2018 CMP.No.320/2017 Tata Consultancy Service Limited vs. Sattva Developers Private Limited & others 8/8 proceeding further in the matter on administrative side and also to Mr.Justice Patri Basavana Goud, on the address available with the said Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru.

The petition filed under Section 11 of the Act is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sk/-