Karnataka High Court
M/S. Urc Constructions Private Limited vs M/S Habitat Pragnya Properties Private ... on 13 April, 2018
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
C.M.P.No.230/2017
Between:
M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited
No.810, 1st Cross, 7th Main
H.A.L. 2nd Stage, Indiranagar
Bengaluru-560038
Represented by its Manager
Shri. V. Ganesan.
... Petitioner
(By Mr. Mahesh A.S. Advocate)
And:
M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited
Opposite Zuri Hotel, Rajapalya Hoodi
Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru-560048
Represented by its Director
Shri. Bhaskar T. Nagendrappa.
... Respondent
(By Mr. A.C. Chethan, Advocate)
***
This C.M.P is filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, praying to appoint
Mr. Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, Retd. District and Sessions
Judge, residing at No.116/5-1, 2nd Floor, 11th Cross below
Margosa Main Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 003 as
an Arbitrator vide Agreement dated 23/01/2012 (Annexure-
Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017
M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs.
M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited
2/27
B) and thereafter constitute a Panel of three Arbitrators in
terms of the conditions of Contract entered into between the
petitioner and respondent to resolve the dispute that has
arisen and also pass such other directions or orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem it fit and necessary in the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
This C.M.P. Coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Mr. Mahesh A.S. Adv. for Petitioner - Company Mr. A.C. Chethan, Adv. for Respondent - Company
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner - M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited against the Respondent - M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on account of a dispute arising between the parties out of the 'Construction Agreement' Annexure B dated 23/01/2012.
Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 3/27
2. The relevant Arbitration Clause 19 of the 'Construction Agreement' Annexure B dated 23/01/2012 is quoted below for ready reference:
"19. ARBITRATION Any dispute arising out of, in connection with or relating to this Contract or the breach or validity thereof, shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) by a Panel of three (3) Arbitrators. One (1) Arbitrator shall be appointed by each of the parties (Employer and Contractor) and the third (3rd) Arbitrator shall be selected by the Arbitrators so selected. On receipt of such communications the Employer shall forthwith appoint the individual so selected as the sole Arbitrator provided that in the event the Contractor refuses or omits to so communicate within the said 10 days, the Employer shall forthwith appoint any one out of the three individuals as the sole Arbitrator. The arbitration shall be held at Bangalore and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Bangalore. The arbitration Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 4/27 proceedings shall be conducted and the award shall be rendered in English. The award shall state the reasons upon which it is based. The Panel of Arbitrators shall render the award within six months from the commencement of the arbitral proceedings which period may be enlarged by the Arbitrator at the request of any of the two parties.
Interest if awarded by the Arbitrator shall be at a rate not exceeding the cash credit rate prevailing on the date of the award. This agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties shall remain in full force and effect pending the award in any arbitrating proceedings. The sole Arbitrator's award shall be final and binding on both the parties. The cost of arbitration shall be borne and paid equally by the parties. The Courts at shall alone have the exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters pertaining to the arbitration or on any matter related to the dispute."
3. The petitioner - Contractor - M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited is said to have served a Notice upon the Respondent - Company seeking such Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 5/27 Appointment of an Arbitrator vide Annexure F dated 19/07/2016 which was not responded to. Therefore, the present C.M.P. has been filed in this Court on 14/08/2017.
4. Upon issuance of notice, the Respondent - Company has filed its Statement of Objections in this Court on 23/01/2018.
5. The learned counsel for the Respondent Company, Mr. A.C. Chethan has raised the following objections to the maintainability of the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Act.
[I] That the Original copy of the Contract between the parties has not been produced before this Court as required under the Rules and therefore the present petition deserves to be rejected;
[II] That the Arbitration Clause quoted above namely, Clause 19 of the Contract is vague and uncertain and therefore, becomes unenforceable between the parties;
Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 6/27 He has referred to Sections 13 and 29 of the Indian Contract Act in this regard.
[III] He has submitted that the said Arbitration Clause is in three Parts. While the first Part talks of an appointment of a Panel of three Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the parties and the third Arbitrator to be appointed by both the Arbitrators so selected, whereas the second Part of the said Clause talks of the Sole Arbitrator being appointed by the Parties (Employer and Contractor of the Contract) [IV] He has also referred to the 'blank' space in the third Part of the said Clause which states that "The Court at__" shall alone have the exclusive jurisdiction to hear the matters pertaining to the Arbitration or on any matter related to the dispute.
[V] He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission that an uncertain or vague contract or Arbitration Clause cannot entitle the petitioner - Company to seek the appointment of an Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 7/27 Arbitrator through the process of this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
[a] Dharma Prathishthanam Vs. M/s. Madhok Construction Pvt.Ltd; A.I.R. 2005 SC 214 (para.33);
The relevant para.33 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference:-
" 33. Three types of situations may emerge between the parties and then before the Court. Firstly, an arbitration agreement, under examination from the point of view of its enforceability, may be one which expresses the parties intention to have their disputes settled by arbitration by using clear and unambiguous language then the parties and the Court have no other choice but to treat the contract as binding and enforce it. Or, there may be an agreement suffering from such vagueness or uncertainty as is not capable of being construed at all by culling out the intention of the parties with certainty, even by reference to the provisions of the Arbitration Act, then it shall Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 8/27 have to be held that there was no agreement between the parties in the eye of law and the question of appointing an Arbitrator or making a reference or disputes by reference to Sections 8, 9 and 20 shall not arise."
[b] M/s. Teamco Private Ltd. Vs. T.M.S. Mani; A.I.R. 1967 Calcutta 168;
c] Delhi and Finance Housing and Construction Limited Vs. Brij Mohan Shah and another; A.I.R. 1956 Punjab 285;
In Dharma Prathishthanam's case (supra), the learned counsel for the Respondent Company submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para.33 held that there may be an Agreement suffering from such vagueness or uncertainty as is not capable of being construed at all by culling out the intention of the parties with certainty, even by reference to the Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 9/27 provisions of the Arbitration Act and therefore it was held that there was no Agreement between the parties in the eye of law and the question of appointing an Arbitrator or making a reference or disputes by reference to Sections 8, 9 and 20 of the Old Arbitration Act, 1940 shall not arise.
In M/s. Teamco Private Limited case (supra), the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that if the parties have failed to express their intention for their dispute to be settled by arbitration by using clear, meaningful and unambiguous language and have failed to enter into a valid Arbitration Agreement, the Court has no choice but to say that there is no Contract and it is not open to the Court to create a Contract for the parties.
Referring to Punjab High Court decision in the case of Delhi and Finance Housing and Construction Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 10/27 Limited (supra), the learned counsel for the Respondent - Company has submitted that the learned Single Judge of the Punjab High Court in the aforesaid case held that where the Arbitration Clause in a Contract provided that all disputes between the parties arising out of the Contract shall be referred to a Sole Arbitration of A/B, since the words 'sole arbitration' were used, it may not be assumed that "/" which occurs between the names of the two Arbitrators means 'or' and that one or the other of them was to be appointed as Arbitrator, and in the absence of any provisions as to how the choice was to be made between the two Arbitrators, the Clause is invalid as being vague and uncertain and therefore, in these circumstances, such an Arbitration Agreement was liable to be ignored under the provisions of the old Arbitration Act of 1940.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner - Contractor, Mr. Mahesh A.S. has produced the Original Agreement Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 11/27 between the parties, rather the relevant part of the same for perusal of this Court. He has submitted that initially when this petition was filed, an Application for dispensing with the filing of the Original Arbitration Agreement was made and the same was allowed dispensing with the production of the Original Agreement for the time being subject to the Original Agreement being produced later on before this Court.
7. During the course of arguments before the Court today, he has produced the same and the said Arbitration Clause of the Agreement with due signatures of both the parties has been compared with the photocopy already produced and both of them tally therefore, this objection raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent - Company is found to be only technical and is liable to be overruled and rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.
Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 12/27
8. On the other hand, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner - Company controverting the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent - Company are as follows:-
[I] The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M.T.C. Limited Vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. (1996) 6 SCC 716 (paras 8 to 11) thereof and has submitted before the Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that matter was concerned with the Arbitration Agreement specifying an even number of Arbitrators which was contended by the learned Attorney General to be a vague Arbitration Agreement, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court repelled the said argument and held that Section 10(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 provided that the parties are free to determine the number of Arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number. Sub- Section (2) of Section 10 says that failing Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 13/27 the determination referred to in sub-Section (1), the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of a Sole Arbitrator and therefore, the Court while invoking Section 11 of the Act, could constitute such Arbitral Tribunal of a Sole Arbitrator and therefore, the aforesaid vagueness of the Arbitral Clause in the Agreement between the parties did not render the said Agreement non-est or void.
The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below for ready reference:-
"8. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and sub-section (4) describes the kind of that writing. There is nothing in Section 7 to indicate the requirement of the number of Arbitrators as a part of the arbitration agreement. Thus the validity of an arbitration agreement does not depend on the number of Arbitrators specified therein. The number of Arbitrators is dealt with separately in Section 10 which is a part of machinery provision for the working of the arbitration agreement. It is, therefore, clear that an arbitration Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 14/27 agreement specifying an even number of Arbitrators cannot be a ground to render the arbitration agreement invalid under the New Act as contended by the learned Attorney General.
9. Section 10 deals with the number of Arbitrators. Sub-section (1) says that the parties are free to determine the number of Arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number. Sub-section (2) then says that failing the determination referred to in sub-section (1), the arbitral tribunal shall consist of a sole Arbitrator. Section 11 provides for appointment of Arbitrators. This is how arbitral tribunal is constituted.
10. The arbitration clause provides that each party shall nominate one Arbitrator and the two Arbitrators shall then appoint an umpire before proceeding with the reference. The arbitration agreement is valid as it satisfies the requirement of Section 7 of the New Act. Section 11(3) requires the two Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 15/27 Arbitrators to appoint the third Arbitrator or the umpire. There can be no doubt that the arbitration agreement in the present case accords with the implied condition contained in para 2 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act, 1940 requiring the two Arbitrators, one each appointed by the two sides, to appoint an umpire not later than one month from the latest date of their respective appointments.
11. The question is whether there is anything in the New Act to make such an agreement unenforceable? We do not find any such indication in the New Act. There is no dispute that the arbitral proceeding in the present case commenced after the New Act came into force and, therefore, the New Act applies. In view of the term in the arbitration agreement that the two Arbitrators would appoint the umpire or the third Arbitrator before proceeding with the reference, the requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 10 is satisfied and sub-section (2) thereof has no application. As earlier stated the agreement Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 16/27 satisfies the requirement of Section 7 of the Act and, therefore, is a valid arbitration agreement. The appointment or Arbitrators must, therefore, be governed by Section 11 of the New Act."
[II] The learned counsel for the petitioner - Company therefore submitted that similarly in the present case also, the intention of the parties to refer the dispute arising out of the said Agreement to the Arbitrators under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 can be gathered from the very first part of the Clause 19 itself, by referring the arbitration to the Panel of three Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party and third Arbitrator to be appointed by the two Arbitrators selected by the parties, but since the parties in the present case have failed to appoint any Arbitrator, this Court can appoint the Sole Arbitrator as per Section 11 (2) of the Act.
Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 17/27 [III] He submitted that the Respondent Company has admittedly failed to respond to the notice given by the petitioner - Company seeking appointment of the Arbitrator on account of a dispute arising between the parties, but since the Respondent - Company has not responded to the said notice, therefore, the para.2 of such arbitration Clause quoted above was never implemented between the parties.
[IV] As far as the place/venue of the Court having jurisdiction in the matter in the third Part of the Arbitration Clause as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent - Company, the same does not pertain to the venue of the arbitral proceedings but the Court to have the jurisdiction at a particular place. Even otherwise, in first part, 'Bangalore' was the agreed place for Arbitration as well as Courts to have jurisdiction over the matter.
[V] The learned counsel for the petitioner - Company also relied upon the judgment of the learned Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 18/27 Single Judge of this Court in the case of Satyam Cineplexes Limited New Delhi Vs. Patel Realty India Limited, Mumbai and another I.L.R. 2013 Kar.5597 (para.9), in which the learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bharat Sewasansthan Vs. U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited AIR 2007 SC 2961 held that the photocopies of the lease agreements could be taken on record under Section 8 of the Act for ascertaining the existence of an Arbitration Clause as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore similarly the photocopy of the Arbitral Agreement between the parties could also be relied upon while dealing with the Applications under Section 11 of the Act.
[VI] The learned counsel for the petitioner - Company further urged that a learned Single Judge of the Apex Court while dealing with the Application under Section 11 of the Act, in the case of VISA International Limited Vs,. Continental Resources (USA) Limited, Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 19/27 (2009) 2 SCC 55 held in para.25 of the said judgment that the aforesaid doubts and uncertainties pointed out by the side opposite are at best or at worst only inartistic drafting of the Arbitration Clause in any Agreement and so long as a clear intention of the parties to go for arbitration in case of a future dispute is evident from the Agreement, the Agreement in question cannot be ignored or set aside while considering the Application under section 11 of the Act.
The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below for ready reference:-
"The question is whether the parties have agreed to resolve their disputes by arbitration or through conciliation?
24. Be it noted that at no stage the respondent took any plea that the dispute was required to be settled through conciliation in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is evidently an afterthought. Shri Venugopal submitted that Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 20/27 on a comparison of dispute resolution clause in the MoU entered into between OMC and CRL with the settlement clause in the agreement dated 15-2-2005, it is apparent that there was no specific intention of the parties to refer the disputes to arbitration. It is true that the dispute resolution clause in the MoU entered into between OMC and CRL is more specific in its terms but the said clause would not throw any light in construing Clause VI in the agreement dated 15-2-2005. One cannot take into consideration terms of other contracts especially when the contract is not between the same parties. Shri Venugopal relied on that clause and submitted that in the absence of a similar clause in the present agreement the parties have made their intention expressly clear to resolve their disputes through conciliation in case of failure to settle the disputes amicably among themselves.
25. The submission is unsustainable for more than one reason. No party can be Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 21/27 allowed to take advantage of inartistic drafting of arbitration clause in any agreement as long as clear intention of parties to go for arbitration in case of any future disputes is evident from the agreement and material on record including surrounding circumstances."
9. I have heard the learned counsels at length and given my earnest consideration to the rival submissions and the judgments cited at the Bar.
10. In the first, the technical objection raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent - Company that the Original Arbitration Agreement is not produced, the same has already been over-ruled above as the learned counsel for the petitioner - Company has produced the Original Agreement for perusal of this Court during the course of arguments and the relevant Arbitration Clause in the photocopy already produced with the petition has been compared by this Court.
Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 22/27
11. That as far as the contention of the Respondent - Company about the uncertainty and vagueness or doubts in the Arbitration Clause raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent - Company is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the so-called uncertainty or doubt expressed by the Respondent - Company does not adversely affect the root and basic Agreement between the parties to adopt the procedure of Dispute Resolution through the procedure of Arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, expressed on the very first part of Clause 19 of the 'Construction Agreement' quoted above.
12. The so-called doubts expressed by the learned counsel for Respondent - Company are about the procedural aspects for appointment of Arbitrators, viz. in case of a Dispute arising between the parties in the said Contract, the appointment of a Panel of three Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 23/27 Arbitrators and in case the second party fails to respond, then a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed and the place of Arbitration and the Courts to have jurisdiction.
13. Secondly, it may be mentioned that the place of Court having jurisdiction left blank '__' in the third part of the Clause 19 quoted above does not have any effect in the present proceedings under the provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1996, since both the parties are admittedly situated at Bangalore and the Contract in question was for adjudication of 'Works Contract' within the State of Karnataka, therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court is undoubtedly there to deal with the present petition under Section 11 of the Act. Moreover, in the earlier part of Clause 19 quoted above, 'Bangalore' is the agreed place for Arbitration as well as Courts to have jurisdiction.
14. The other doubt or vagueness expressed by the learned counsel for the Respondent Company as Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 24/27 aforesaid does not detract from the basic intention of the parties of resolving their dispute through the mechanism of arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1996 and these procedural aspects, viz. first part, second part and the third part of Clause 19 quoted above can be taken care by this Court, while appointing an Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1996.
15. In the absence of the appointment of the Panel of three Arbitrators, as mutually agreed between the parties, none having been appointed so far, the case would fall within the ambit of Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and therefore, this Court can invoke its jurisdiction to appoint a Sole Arbitrator in the matter, as envisaged in Clause 19 read with Section 10(2) of the Act.
16. The purpose of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 specially after its Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 25/27 amendment by Act No.3 of 2016 with effect from 23/10/2015 and as dealt with by this Court at some length in the case of N.K. Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Concord India Ltd. (C.M.P.No.98/2008 decided on 26/10/2017), the Court is to look into the existence of essentially two factors only, (1) the existence of a valid Arbitration Agreement which in the present case in the first part of Clause 19 is found to be there by this Court; and (2) the existence of an Arbitral Dispute.
17. This Court is not expected, while dealing with Petitions under Section 11 of the Act, to go into the merits of the claim or possibility of a counter claim or the possible defences of the other party. It is left for the Arbitral Tribunal constituted or the Arbitrator appointed by this Court to look into these aspects of the matter.
18. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the objections raised by the Respondent - Company in the present case are not sustainable and the same deserve Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 26/27 to be over-ruled and the same are accordingly over- ruled.
19. The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.
20. Both the learned counsels at this stage have fairly agreed to the appointment of Mr. Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, a former District Judge of the Karnataka Judiciary to be appointed as the Arbitrator in the present case.
21. Accordingly, Mr. Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, a former District Judge is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in this matter, to enter into the said reference of Arbitration and act as an Arbitrator in the present case in the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing in the said Arbitration Centre.
Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.230/2017 M/s. URC Constructions Private Limited Vs. M/s. Habitat Pragnya Properties Private Limited 27/27
22. A copy of this order be sent to the Arbitration Centre, Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter, on administrative side and also to Mr. Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, on the address available with the said Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*