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 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Madhusudan P Patel vs Sri Harsha on 25 July, 2018

Author: B.Veerappa

Bench: B. Veerappa

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2018

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

                  CMP NO.362 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1.     Sri.Madhusudan P.Patel
       S/o late Pachan Jivraj Patel
       Aged about 51 years

2.     Sri.Bhupad M.Patel
       S/o Madhusudan P.Patel
       Aged about 21 years

3.     Nikita M.Patel
       D/o Madhusudan P.Patel
       Aged about 25 years

4.     Heenal M.Patel
       D/o Madhusudan P.Patel
       Aged about 23 years

       All are r/at
       No.16, Mico Layout
       1st Cross, Near Karnataka Bank
       BTM 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560 076

       All the four are represented by
       their Special Power of Attorney Holder

       Mr.Jagadeesha H.K
       Aged about 55 years
                               2

       S/o Keshavamurthy H.R
       Working as Sales Officer at
       M/s.Niki Impex
       Having office at:
       No.28/A-1, J.P.Nagar 3rd Phase
       Bannerghatta Main Road
       BTM Circle, Next to Infosys
       Bangalore - 560 078.              ...PETITIONERS

(By Sri.Suneel S.Narayan, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Sri.Harsha
       S/o L.K.Murthy
       Aged about 36 years

2.     Smt.Swarna L.K.Murthy
       W/o L.K.Murthy
       Aged about 60 years

       Both are r/at
       No.110, 11th Main
       3rd Phase, Girinagar
       Bangalore - 560 085              ...RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.A.Mahesh Chowdhary, Advocate for R1 & R2)

      This CMP is filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to
appoint any person whom the Hon'ble Court deems fit
as Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the
petitioners and respondents in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and
equity.
                               3

     This CMP coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court made the following:

                           ORDER

The petitioner filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that both the respondents were introduced to the petitioners through their Chartered Accountant in September 2016. Petitioner No.1 as Investor and Respondent No.1 as Technology Provider entered into Memorandum of Agreement on 24.10.2016. On the same day in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, petitioners as partners of first part and respondents as partners of second part were entered into a Partnership Deed. According to the petitioners, on 05.12.2016, the 1st petitioner as partner 4 of the firm entered into rent agreement dated 05.12.2016 with the owner of the premises to start the business. Thereafter, the petitioners issued legal notice to the respondents wherein the Partnership Firm was dissolved, Memorandum of Agreement was cancelled and by invoking arbitration clause sought to resolve the dispute through arbitrator. The respondents have not given any reply to the notice. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

4. Sri.Suneel S.Narayan, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the averments made in the petition has contended that there is no dispute with regard to Memorandum of Agreement dated 24.10.2016, Partnership Deed and existence of Clause 17 and he submits that the petitioners have complied the 5 provisions of Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by issuing legal notice on 17.10.2017. Therefore, he sought to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

5. Per contra, Sri.A.Mahesh Chowdhary, the learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the existence of Partnership Deed, Arbitration Clause and issuance of legal notice.

6. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, there is no impediment to appoint the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

7. For the reasons stated above, Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Hon'ble Sri.Justice Ashok B.Hinchigeri, Former Judge of this Court, is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in terms of Clause 17 of the Partnership Deed dated 6 24.10.2016 entered into between the parties in accordance with law.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to Hon'ble Sri.Justice Ashok B.Hinchigeri, Former Judge of this Court and Arbitration Centre for reference.

Sd/-

JUDGE Prs*