Karnataka High Court
M/S Lenovo India Private Limited vs M/S Jalan Infotech Private Limited on 8 January, 2014
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
C.M..P.172/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.172/2012
BETWEEN :
M/s.Lenovo India Pvt. Limited,
A company incorporated under
the provisions of the Companies Act. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.V.Omprakash, Adv. )
AND :
1.M/s. Jalan Infotech Private Limited,
A company incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
54/C, Hazra Road, 1st floor,
Kolkata-700 019.
2. Mr.Pavin Jalan, Director,
9AB, Bright Apartment, 7 Bright Street,
Kolkata-700019.
3. Mr.Arunk Kuman Jalan,
Director, 9AB, Bright Apartment,
7, Bright Street,
Kolkatta-700019. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Aditya Sondhi, Adv. )
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,
1996 TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATTION
OF DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
2
C.M..P.172/12
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRL.HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this court under Sec.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties in terms of clause 30 of the Agreement, Annexure-B. According to the petitioner parties exchanged notices, whereunder, petitioner by notice Annexure-F proposed the name of Sri.S.Nagaraju as an Arbitrator and called upon the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator from his side, and since no Arbitrator was appointed by the respondent, it led to the filing of this petition.
2. Petition is opposed by filing objections of the respondent, interalia, contending that the petition is not maintainable on the premise that the agreement itself is no loner in force and has expired on 14-2-2007, and 3 C.M..P.172/12 that the petition suffers from delay and laches. According to the first respondent, the agreement is executed between the petitioner and itself and not respondent No.2 and 3 and therefore the said respondents are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceeding. In addition, it is asserted that it is the petitioner who is due to the respondent large sums of money, having acknowledged its liability on several occasions.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
4. Indisputably, execution of the agreement Annexure B by the petitioner and the first respondent is not in dispute. Clause 30 of the said agreement is an arbitration agreement. The fact that petitioner addressed the notice Annexure-F proposing appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of clause 30 is yet another fact not in dispute. So also it is not disputed 4 C.M..P.172/12 that since the first respondent did not, in terms of clause 30, exercise its right to appoint an Arbitrator, there is non compliance with sub.sec (5) of Sec.11 of the Act.
5. Respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties as they are not parties to the arbitration agreement. Petition as against respondent No.2 and 3 stands dismissed. Although the first respondent has advanced several contentions regarding maintainability, delay and laches and that there are no arbitrable disputes between the parties, are questions which require to be answered by the Arbitrator, if such contentions are advanced.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. Sri.Justice H.Rangavittalachar, Former Judge of this court, as consented by learned counsel for the parties on instructions, is requested to enter upon reference and conduct the arbitration proceeding in the Bangalore 5 C.M..P.172/12 Arbitration Centre in terms of Arbitration Centre Karnataka (Domestic and International) Rules 2012.
Sd/-
JUDGE ssy/-