Karnataka High Court
Mphasis Limited vs Iti Limited on 7 April, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A. S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A. S. BOPANNA
CMP NO.159/2016
Between:
Mphasis Limited
Bagmane World Technology Centre,
Marathalli Outer Ring Road,
Doddanakundi Village, Mahadevapura,
Bengaluru - 560 048,
Represented by its Vice President Legal
Hemanth Ananth Ram
... Petitioner
(By Sri.Dhananjay Joshi, Advocate)
And
ITI Limited,
ITI Bhavan,
Doorvaninagar,
Bengaluru - 560 016. ... Respondent
(By Sri.C.K.Nanda Kumar, Advocate)
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996 praying to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal by
appointment of a suitable person as the Sole Arbitrator
for the adjudication of the petitioner's claims and etc.
2
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for
admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of the Sole Arbitrator.
2. The petitioner and the respondent have entered into contract based on the request for quotation and in that regard certain sums have been agreed thereto in respect of work to be performed relating to collection of data. Since certain disputes have arisen between the parties, the petitioner having invoked the arbitration clause in the said agreement is before this Court seeking appointment of the Arbitrator.
3. The respondent is served and represented and the objections are filed to the petition. In so far as the contract entered into between the parties, the same 3 containing arbitration clause, the petitioner having invoked arbitration clause and notice being issued as per Annexure 'L' to the petition, there is no serious dispute. Taking note of the contentions that is put forth, keeping in view of the fact that composite consideration is to be made in respect of three agreements and the claim as put forth is to be decided as a single subject matter, the contentions with regard to jurisdiction in respect of one of the contract will not arise.
4. Another aspect to be noticed at this juncture, is that the respondent has contended regarding non joinder of a party in respect of the agreement at Annexure 'F'. It is contended that M/s.TechSmart India Private Limited, a party is also to be joined and as such the petitioner ought to have arrayed the said party to the contract also as a party to the instant petition. In that regard, it is to be clarified 4 that since I have already indicated that the learned Arbitrator will treat the claim as a single subject matter and in that context whether the said party is also a necessary party is an issue, which can be decided by the learned Arbitrator by taking into consideration the contentions to be put forth by the parties. Therefore, in that regard, the contention is left open. In that background having perused the agreements, which are produced along with the petition and having taken note that in all the three agreements the relevant clauses at Clause 18, Clause 17 and Clause 25 respectively provides for resolution of disputes by arbitration, it is necessary that a Sole Arbitrator be appointed to consider the rival contentions of the parties and to resolve the dispute amongst the parties through arbitration.
5. Accordingly, Sri. Justice V.Jagannathan, a former Judge of this Court is appointed to act as a Sole 5 arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 and the Rules governing Bangalore Arbitration Centre.
6. Registry to dispatch the copy of this order to the Arbitration Centre, Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Learned counsel for the petitioner to also approach the Arbitration Centre and file the claim statement, whereupon the learned Arbitrator shall enter reference, issue notice to the parties and proceed further in accordance with law.
Registry to return the papers if any, sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE UN