M/S Artec Advertising vs The Karnataka State Cricket ... on 15 February, 2013

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Artec Advertising vs The Karnataka State Cricket ... on 15 February, 2013

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

                     BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

                 C.M.P. NO.85/2012
BETWEEN:

M/S. ARTEC ADVERTISING,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
NO 18, PRIMROSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025,
REP. BY ITS PARTNER,
SHRI. P.B. ABDUL RAHIM.               ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.)

AND

1.    THE KARNATAKA STATE
      CRICKET ASSOCIATION,
      M. CHINNASWAMY STADIUM ,
      MAHATHMA GANDHI ROAD,
      BANGALORE-560 001,
      REP. BY ITS HON. SECRETARY,
      SHRI. J. SRINATH.

2.    SHRI.J.SRINATH,
      HON. SECRETARY,                ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.VIVEK S. HOLLA, BY M/S. HOLLA & HOLLA,
    ADV. FOR R1
    R2 DELETED V/O. DATED 15.02.2013)
                                 2




     THIS CIVIL MISC.PETITION IS FILED U/S. 11(5) &
(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT
PRAYING TO :


     I. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF AN IMPARTIAL
ARBITRATOR      TO   ADJUDICATE       THE    ARBITRATION
DISPUTE INTER SE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AS
PER LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED 25.5.2000 WHICH
IS ANNX-C.


     THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING
ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :

                          ORDER

At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondents has raised objection with regard to the impleadment of respondent No.2 in the instant petition, since he would not be necessary as a party in person (by name) since he had only represented the respondent No.1 3 as a Honorary Secretary of the association. It is in that regard, IA. No.2/2012 seeking deletion of respondent No.2 is filed. Having perused the contents, the application is allowed. The petitioner shall delete respondent No.2. The amendment be carried out to the cause title to the petition forthwith.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent had entered into a license agreement dated 25.05.2000 with regard to the petitioner herein putting up certain advertisements. According to the petitioner, as per the said agreement, the license was for a period of nine years. Despite the same, the respondent had subsequently issued fresh tenders in respect of such advertisements and therefore there was certain dispute with regard to that aspect of the matter. Clause 17 of the 4 agreement is referred by the petitioner to contend that in the event of there being any dispute, the matter is to be resolved by arbitration as provided therein. In that regard, the petitioner on invoking the said clause had issued a notice dated 27.10.2011 (Annexure-G) suggesting the name of the Arbitrator. The respondent had issued reply and though the respondent had disputed the claim made by the petitioner had subsequently not agreed to the Arbitrator suggested by the petitioner, who had indicated a different name.

4. In the instant petition, the respondent have filed their objection statement. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner had not taken part in the subsequent tender called by the respondent and since the earlier license agreement had been terminated, the petitioner cannot claim any right to seek appointment of an Arbitrator. Hence, it is contended that the petition be dismissed.

5. Having noticed the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that even if the objections which have been putforth by the respondent is kept in view, the said aspect can only be considered by an Arbitrator to be appointed, since that in itself would touch upon the dispute between the parties relating to the license under which the petitioner claims. Furthermore, it is to be noticed that when the respondent had issued their reply at the first instance on 17.11.2011 they had in fact suggested an alternate name of an Arbitrator.

6. Therefore, keeping these aspect in view, I am of the opinion that a learned Arbitrator requires to be appointed. Accordingly, Justice Sri. G. Patri Basavana Goud, Former Judge of this Court residing at No. 58, "Ganga", ISRO Road, Judicial Officers' Layout, Sanjaynagar, Bangalore is appointed to be the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. The petitioner shall now file the claim statement along 6 with the documents before the learned Arbitrator who shall enter upon reference, issue notice to the respondent, settle the terms of arbitration and proceed further with the matter in accordance with law.

7. In terms of the above, the petition is allowed. Registry to return the papers, if any sought by the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court