M/S. Alliance Projects vs M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Limited on 9 October, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S. Alliance Projects vs M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Limited on 9 October, 2013

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                           1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF OCTOBER 2013

                       BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

                   CMP.No.101/2013

BETWEEN

M/s.Alliance Projects,
A partnership Firm having its Office at
No.556, Jeevan Anand Building
II Floor, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai-600018
Represented by authorized Signatory
Sri.Yesudas, C.A.
Head Legal, Alliance Projects.          ...PETITIONER

(By Sri.S.N. Prashanth Chandra, Advocate)

AND:

M/s.Simplex Infrastructures Limited
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, having its registered
Office at No.48, Casa Major Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600008
Represented by Technical Director
Sri. Shankar Guha.                ...RESPONDENT

(By Smt. Sunitha Srinivas, Advocate)

                      -0-0-0-0-0-
                                 2




      This Civil Misc. Petition is filed U/s.11(5) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole
arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties
in terms of clause 58.1 of the GCC of the Contract
Agreement dated 15.7.2010 vide annexure-A.

     This CMP coming on for admission this day, the
Court passed the following:-

                                ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and examined Clause 58.1 of the agreement dated 15.7.2010, Annexure-"A".

2. It is needless to state that the parties having agreed to the seat of arbitration as Bangalore though the agreement is entered into at Chennai, regard being had to the decision of the Apex Court in [(2012) 9 SCC 552] Bharath Aluminium Company .vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Incorporated at paragraph 123 at Page 621, there can be no more dispute that the seat of arbitration is Bangalore. 3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits a memo dated 9.10.2013 in compliance with the order dated 25.9.2013 requesting the petitioner to explore the possibility of change of seat of arbitration. The memo states that the petitioner is willing to have the venue of the arbitral proceedings at Chennai while retaining the seat of arbitration at Bangalore and has suggested the names of two arbitrators at Chennai.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the notice dated 20.10.2012 Annexure-"B" the names of three arbitrators when suggested was not accepted by the petitioner since the seat of arbitration is at Bangalore while the learned arbitrators are residents of Chennai.

5. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the Court may appoint an arbitrator of its choice from out of the five persons, suggested. 4

6. In the result, this petition is allowed holding that the seat of arbitration is Bangalore and that the venue of arbitration is Chennai with a request to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India to enter upon reference and conduct the arbitration proceeding at Chennai.

Petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

*alb/-.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court