Karnataka High Court
Smt.Prema V Chelvaraj vs M/S. Silverline Resorts Private ... on 18 December, 2024
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:52505
CMP No. 87 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 87 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.PREMA V CHELVARAJ
W/O LATE V CHELVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.204, 3RD A CROSS
GROUND FLOOR
NEAR RESIDENCY SCHOOL
KASTURINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 043
2. SMT ANDAL SHAMSUNDAR
W/O LATE C SHAMSUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.204, 3RD A CROSS
Digitally signed GROUND FLOOR
by PRAKASH N
NEAR RESIDENCY SCHOOL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KASTURINAGAR
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 043
3. MR KRITHIKA SHAMSUNDAR
W/O SHRI DINESH KUMAR SELVARAJ
RESIDING AT NO.204, 3RD A CROSS
GROUND FLOOR
NEAR RESIDENCY SCHOOL
KASTURINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 043
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:52505
CMP No. 87 of 2023
THROUGH HER POA HOLDER
MR ANDAL SHAMSUNDAR
W/O LATE C SHAMSUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.204, 3RD A CROSS
GROUND FLOOR
NEAR RESIDENCY SCHOOL
KASTURINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 043
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. IAN LEWIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. SILVERLINE RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMAPNIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AT NO.54
BRIGADE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR DAWOOD MOHAMMED
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. MANEESHA KONGOVI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
11 (5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996,
R/W CLAUSE 2 OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS BY
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME,
1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT, MR. VIKRAM RAMAKRISHNAN,
ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS OR ALTERNATIVELY,
ANY OTHER RETIRED JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT FOUND
SUITABLE, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATION OF
DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
THE RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 31 OF THE LEASE
DEED DATED 30/08/2008 (AT ANNEXURE F) AND GRANT SUCH
OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:52505
CMP No. 87 of 2023
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have sought for appointment of an Arbitrator in light of the disputes that have arisen between the petitioners and the respondent and reliance is placed on Clause 31 of the Deed of Lease dated 30.08.2008 at Annexure-F.
2. Perused the Deed of Lease at Annexure-F which is a registered Lease Deed entered into between Mr.C.Shamsunder and M/s.Silverline Resorts Private Limited, the respondent herein.
3. It is submitted by the petitioners that after the death of Late Mr.C.Shamsunder they claim that they are the legal heirs of Late Mr.C.Shamsunder. It is further submitted that disputes have arisen in relation to the Deed of Lease between the parties and in light of which reference to arbitration is sought to be made.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:52505 CMP No. 87 of 2023
4. Perused Clause 31 of the Deed of Lease dated 30.08.2008 which provides for resolution of dispute by arbitration.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has filed detailed statement of objections. The objections raised are that the owner of the property are M/s.Monarch Citadel Private Limited for which Mr.C.Shamsunder and Mr.C.Padmanabhan were share holders. It is specifically contended that petitioners herein are not the owners of the property.
6. It is further submitted that a suit has been filed by M/s.Monarch Citadel Private Limited against the petitioners and respondent in O.S.No.220/2024 which is pending adjudication in which there is an order of restraint against the petitioners from interfering with the possessory rights, peaceful possession and ownership of M/s.Monarch Citadel Private Limited.
7. It is further submitted that substantive claim made by the petitioners is barred by time. Various other contentions have been raised.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:52505 CMP No. 87 of 2023
8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that in the absence of M/s.Monarch Citadel Private Limited, reference cannot be made as it would interfere with certain orders passed by the Civil Court.
9. It is to be noticed that the registered Lease Deed has been entered into between Mr.C.Shamsunder and respondent herein. It is also a matter that comes out from the Deed of Lease that Unit mentioned in the Schedule are in possession of the respondent and respondent had been paying rents to Mr.C.Shamsunder and later, after his demise, rent is being deposited to his account which is the stand by the respondent.
10. Though various contentions have been raised regarding M/s.Monarch Citadel Private Limited, all such contentions cannot be adjudicated upon in the present proceedings. Prima-facie existence of agreement with clause for arbitration would by itself is sufficient to make reference to arbitration. That the plain reading of Deed of Lease makes out relationship of Lessor and Lessee and respondent has been paying rent earlier to Mr.C.Shamsunder and subsequently depositing it in the account of Mr.C.Shamsunder. Hence, -6- NC: 2024:KHC:52505 CMP No. 87 of 2023 interpretation of proceedings before the civil court in a suit are matters to be decided by the Arbitrator. The fact that there is dispute as borne out from the notice of the petitioner at Annexure-R, petitioner has specifically asserted regarding disputes that have arisen regarding non-compliance with the terms of lease.
11. It is to be noticed that the Lease Deed dated 30.08.2008 is a registered Lease Deed. There is an assertion in the legal notice at Annexure-G dated 15.09.2021 that at Para V that last of the payment from the respondent was received in November, 2020. The petition has been filed in February, 2023. It is not demonstrated that the claim is ex-facie barred. In such a situation of doubt, matter requires reference to arbitration.
12. Accordingly, case is made out for exercise of power under Section 11 (6) of the Act. All contentions regarding relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as raised in the statement of objections, area of occupation as well as other objections raised in the statement of objections, -7- NC: 2024:KHC:52505 CMP No. 87 of 2023 limitation, claim made are kept open and would be subject to adjudication in the proceedings before the Arbitrator.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The dispute is referred for redressal by way of arbitration.
13. Sri.I.S.Antin, Retired District and Sessions Judge, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter into the said reference of Arbitration and act as the Sole Arbitrator in the present case in the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.
(i) All claims and contentions of any of the parties including jurisdiction, limitation, etc., are left/kept open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
(ii) A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter, on administrative side and also to Sri.I.S.Antin, Retired District and Sessions Judge to the address available with the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:52505 CMP No. 87 of 2023 said Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru.
(iii) Registry is directed to return all original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP