Sri Nakoda Construction Limited vs Mr Shivaji Rao M Poal on 2 September, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Nakoda Construction Limited vs Mr Shivaji Rao M Poal on 2 September, 2013

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                                            CMP 102/13
                           -1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

   DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

                        BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY


        CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 102 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

SRI NAKODA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
10TH FLOOR, THE RESIDENCY,
RESIDENCY ROAD
BANGALORE-560025
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.RATAN LATH,
S/O BABULAL LATH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
                                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY K, ADV.)

AND

MR SHIVAJI RAO M POAL
S/O M.K.POAL,
AGED 45 YEARS
NOW NO.300, DEEPTI NIVAS,
4TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS,
COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT, KEMPAPURA,
BANGALORE-560024.

AND ALSO R/A. D.No.198, II WARD
MAIN BAZAR ROAD, SANDUR - 583119
                                        ... RESPONDENT

(RESPONDENT - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
                                                CMP 102/13
                          -2-



     THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED U/S.11(5) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO
APPOINT THE SUITABLE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE
UPON THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN UNDER THE
AGREEMENT DATED 24/3/2006 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER
AND THE RESPONDENT, ANNEX.A.

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


                       ORDER

Petitioner and the respondent claim to have entered into an agreement dt. 24/3/2006 by which the respondent agreed to sell the immovable property in question to the petitioner for a valuable consideration after receiving an advance of Rs.13 crores. Clause 9 of the covenants in the agreement of sale is that all disputes in the agreement of sale will be referred for arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is the allegation of the petitioner that respondent has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement by executing and lodging for registration, the sale deed of the immovable property after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.6 CMP 102/13 -3- crores, a dispute between the parties, hence the notice dt. 1/4/2013 - Annex.F of the petitioner, extended its consent to appoint Sri.Justice S.R.Venkatesh Murthy, retired Judge, as the sole arbitrator. That notice, though acknowledged, was not responded to. Petitioner, apprehending that the respondent would do away with the immovable properties, instituted Arbitration Application No. 112/12 invoking Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in which petitioner has the benefit of an order of injunction against the respondent.

2. Respondent though served, is absent and unrepresented.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings. There is no more doubt that there exists an arbitration agreement to arbitrate over the dispute between the parties in terms of the agreement of sale - Annex.A, moreso on the allegation CMP 102/13 -4- that the respondent has failed to act as required by clause-9 of the agreement.

4. In the result, this petition is allowed. Sri. Justice S.R.Venketesh Murthy, retired Judge, is requested to accept the appointment as a sole arbitrator and hold arbitration proceedings at the Bangalore Arbitration Centre in accordance with the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

Sd/-

JUDGE Rd/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court