Karnataka High Court
Dr. Sunil Shenvi vs Ravindranath Ge Medical Associates ... on 23 September, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
CMP No. 486 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CMP NO. 486 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
DR. SUNIL SHENVI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O MR DAYANAND SHENVI,
F-2, SUNFLOWER APARTMENT,
KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI,
BELGAUM-560006
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISCHAL DEV B R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAVINDRANATH GE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,
ALSO KNOWN AS "RGMA" OR
"GLENEAGLES GLOBAL HOSPITALS",
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
PLOT NO.439, CHERAN NAGAR, PERUMBAKKAM,
CHENNAI-600100
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
POORNIMA (BY Dr. S.V. JOGA RAO., ADVOCATE)
SHIVANNA
Location: HIGH THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO A) APPOINT A SOLE
ARBITRATOR FOR REFERENCE OF THE DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF
OR RELATING TO THE DOCTOR CONTRACTS DATED 12/06/2019 AND
07/06/2021 ENTERED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF
THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 13 AND CLAUSE 14 OF THE
CONTRACTS DATED 12/06/2019 AND 07/06/2021 RESPECTIVELY. B)
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT
DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
CMP No. 486 of 2022
THIS CMP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Appoint a Sole Arbitrator for reference of the disputes arising out of or relating to the Doctor Contracts dated 12/06/2019 and 07/06/2021 entered between the Respondent in favour of the Petitioner pursuant to Clause 13 and Clause 14 of the Contracts dated 12/06/2019 and 07/06/2021 respectively. Doctor Contract dated 12/06/2019 and 07/06/2021 are Annexed as Annexure-A and Annexure-B respectively.
b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner is a doctor by profession who had entered the service of respondent on a retainership basis in terms of the contract dated 12.06.2019 which was in force from 12.06.2019 to 11.06.2021. Subsequent thereto, another agreement came to be executed on 7.06.2021 extending the period from 12.06.2021 to 11.06.2023. The said agreement is governed by arbitration in terms of clause 14.1 which reproduced hereunder for easy reference: -3- CMP No. 486 of 2022
14.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 14.1 Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution: This Agreement shall be governed in accordance with the laws of India. Subject to the provisions of arbitration, the Courts at Bangalore shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters of dispute in respect of or arising pursuant to this Agreement. In the event of any dispute arising between the Parties in connection with this Agreement including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, either Party may institute the dispute resolution procedures set out below. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be first discussed between the Parties who will try to settle the issues amicably.
If they fail to resolve amicably within 15 (fifteen) days of reference of disputes, the disputes shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in the following manner. The Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and/or any statutory modifications thereof as applicable in India (Arbitration Act) and the award rendered shall be final and binding on the Parties. All dispute and differences arising out of or in connection with or relating to this Agreement shall be referred for resolution by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Parties mutually. In the event the Parties fail to appoint mutually within a period of 30 (thirty) days from reference of dispute, the arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the Arbitration Act. The venue of Arbitration shall be Chennai, India and the language used shall be English. The costs of the arbitration proceedings shall be borne respective Parties.
3. There being certain disputes between the parties which arise out of the said agreement and payments to be made thereto, the petitioner by way of his notice dated 11.03.2022 called upon the respondent to make payment -4- CMP No. 486 of 2022 of the due amounts which was replied to by the respondent stating that no such amounts are due, as such the petitioner issued another notice on 22.04.2022. Finally, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause vide his notice dated 7.05.2022 providing a list of arbitrators for the respondent to choose from to act as an arbitrator. The respondent replied to the same on 22.05.2022 denying the requirement to appoint an arbitrator and as such called upon the petitioner to withdraw the arbitration notice. It is in that that background, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Though notice to the respondent has been served and a counsel had entered appearance for the respondent, the said counsel has not been appearing in the matter and this Court vide its order dated 16.09.2022 had observed that if none were to appear for the respondent, the matter would be taken up for consideration in their absence.
5. The submission of Sri.Nischal Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to clause 14.1 is that agreement is -5- CMP No. 486 of 2022 governed by the Laws of India and subject to the provisions of arbitration, the Courts at Bangalore shall have jurisdiction over all matters of dispute in respect of or arising in terms of the agreement. Relying upon the same, he submits that insofar as the court is concerned, it is the Courts in Bangalore would have jurisdiction but the venue for arbitration for convenience has been fixed at Chennai, as such this Court would have a jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator subject to however the arbitration being held at Chennai.
6. Heard Sri.Nischal Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused papers.
7. Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'A&C Act') is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
2(e) "Court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes;-6- CMP No. 486 of 2022
8. The definition of 'Court' indicative of the fact that the Court which has original jurisdiction over any matter would be the Court referred to under Section 2(e) of the A&C Act.
9. Section 42 of A&C Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
42. Jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court.
10. In terms of Section 42 of the A&C Act, once a Court proceedings has been filed in a Court, that Court alone shall have the jurisdiction over all arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement thereto.
11. In the present case, parties have agreed that it is the Court at Bangalore would have jurisdiction, that would mean to say that any proceedings under -7- CMP No. 486 of 2022 Section 9 and 34, it is the Court at Bangalore which should have jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the Court referred to therein though refers to the court for original instance would also include the Court appointing an arbitrator. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that this Court would have the jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator though of course venue for arbitration being at Chennai. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The petition is allowed. Sri.Suhrith Parthasarathy, advocate, Sriram Dham, No.7, Jagadambal Colony, 2nd Street, Royapettah, Chennai-600014 is appointed as a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties.
ii. The fee of the arbitrator shall be governed by the Arbitration Centre-Karnataka (Domestic and International) Rules, 2012.-8- CMP No. 486 of 2022
iii. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director, Bangalore Arbitration Centre/Arbitrator appointed.
iv. All contentions are left open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ln