Karnataka High Court
Shankar Chidambaram vs Mrs. M. B. Nagarathna on 30 August, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
C.M.P. No.205/2017
BETWEEN:
SHANKAR CHIDAMBARAM
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI.T.G.CHIDAMBARAM,
R/AT NO.44/1, FIRST FLOOR,
2ND MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL,
BENGALURU-560 003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T V VIJAY RAGHAVAN, ADV.)
AND:
MRS. M. B. NAGARATHNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O MR.H.R.VARADARAJAN,
R/AT RATHAN,
20/1, 3RD MAIN K.H.M. BLOCK,
GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032
ALSO AT SHOP NO.2, GROUND FLOOR,
NO.44/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560 003.
... RESPONDENT
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO
APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE ARISEN
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN TERMS
OF THE CLAUSE 36 OF THE AGREEMENT OF LEASE
DATED:05/04/2016. B) TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/RELIEFS
AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the petitioner has filed the instant petition relying on the provision contained in Clause 36 of the Agreement seeking appointment of the learned Arbitrator, the notice dated 17.06.2017 does not disclose that clause has been invoked and the name of the Arbitrator has been suggested.
2. In that view, the instant petition would be premature. The petitioner is however granted the liberty to issue an appropriate notice and thereafter approach this Court through a fresh petition.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms