M/S Ramakrishna Constructions vs National Technological Institutions ... on 12 November, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Ramakrishna Constructions vs National Technological Institutions ... on 12 November, 2020

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                           1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

                       BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

  CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 215 OF 2018
BETWEEN:

M/S. RAMAKRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS
A PROPRIETARY PRESENTLY FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT NO. 355, SANJEEVINI, 16TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN
DOLLARS COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 094
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR.M.RAMAKRISHNA.
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.SUDHARSHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:

NATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONS HOUSING CO
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED PRESENTLY OFFICE AT
NO.84, SUN SMILE, SERPENTINE ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
                                        ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. HARISH KUMAR, M.S, FOR
    SRI. GANGADHAR.D., ADVOCATES)

     THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO 1)
APPOINT , A SOLE ARBITRATOR IN THE PRESENT HON'BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND REFER THE DISPUTES RAISED BY
THE PETITIONERS TO ARBITRATION; IN TERMS OF Agreement
DATED: 09.10.1996, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.

     THIS CMP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                2




                             ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original of Annexure-A Agreement dated 09.10.1996 is not in the custody or possession of the petitioner and that the same is in the custody and possession of the respondent.

2. Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel for the respondent denies the said allegation and submits that respondent also does not have custody or possession of the original Agreement dated 09.10.1996.

3. On 21.10.2020, this Court directed the respondent to obtain instructions with regard to whether the Agreement dated 09.10.1996 vide Annexure-A said to have been entered into between the petitioner and respondent is a true copy of the original.

4. Today, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on instructions, submits that the respondent is not in a position to state whether Annexure-A is a true copy of the original Agreement dated 09.10.1996 entered into between the petitioner and respondent. 3

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since there is a dispute as to whether Annexure-A is a true copy of original Agreement dated 09.10.1996, which has not been produced as required in this petition, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to pursue such other remedies as may be available in law.

(i) All claims and contentions of any of the parties including jurisdiction, limitation, etc., are left / kept open.

(ii) Registry is directed to return all original documents, if any, produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.

Sd/-

JUDGE Srl.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court