Karnataka High Court
Mrs Jasmine Maria Aranha vs Purushotham Rai on 6 December, 2023
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44052
CMP No. 612 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 612 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. MRS JASMINE MARIA ARANHA
W/O MOVIN VICTOR ARANHA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2. MR MOVIN VICTOR ARANHA
S/O MICHEL GILBERT ARANHA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.201,
PROVIDENCE ABODE-2,
BEJAI NEW ROAD,
MANGALURU-575004.
...PETITIONERS
(BY MS. KRITHIKA BHAT K, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
ANAND N
Location:
HIGH 1. PURUSHOTHAM RAI
COURT OF S/O LATE HUKRAPPA RAI,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT 1ST FLOOR,
SHIVABAGH BUILDING,
KADRI MANGALURU-575003.
2. MR SADANAND V SHETTY
S/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT NO.903,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44052
CMP No. 612 of 2022
CASTLE APARTMENTS,
OPP CANARA CLUB,
SHIVABAGH, KADRI,
MANGALURU-575003.
3. MR P A MUBEEN
S/O P A GAFOOR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.701,
CLASSIQUE HARMONY,
BALIKASHARAMA ROAD,
KANKANADY,
MANGALURU-575002.
4. MR VIJAYA K VASANI
S/O KANTHILAL RAGHUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.18-3-154/6
SRI VINAYAK KRUPA,.
OPP ATTAVARA KATTE,
MANGALURU-575001.
5. MR DEEPAK K VASANI
S/O KANTHILAL RAGHUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.18-3-154/6
SRI VINAYAK KRUPA,
OPP ATTAVARA KATTE,
MANGALURU-575001.
6. M/S PROVIDENCE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM OFFICE
AT BEJAI NEW ROAD,
MANGALURU-575004.
7. MR JOHN SYLVESTER SALDANHA
S/O LATE LOUIS SALDANHA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:44052
CMP No. 612 of 2022
R/AT PENT HOUSE,
PROVIDENCE ABODE-1,
BEJAI NEW ROAD,
MANGALURU-575004.
8. MR BENNER D MENEZES
S/O LATE M MENEZES,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT FLORAINE,
BEJAI NEW ROAD,
MANGALURU-575004.
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2023 SERVICE OF NOTICE
IN RESPECT OF R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
SRI. KOUSHALYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5;
R6 TO R8 ARE SERVED)
THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR IN
TERMS OF CLAUSE NO. 31 OF THE AGREEMENT
DATED 10/04/2013 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENTS WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN TERMS OF SECTION
11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT
1996 TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE AND DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:44052
CMP No. 612 of 2022
ORDER
This petition is filed for the appointment of a sole arbitrator relying upon the agreement for arbitration as contained in the Agreement for Construction and Sale dated 10.04.2013 [Annexure-A]. The agreement for arbitration reads as under:
"In case of any dispute between the parties to this deed, regarding the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this deed, or anything arising out of or in relation to or on account of or in connection with this agreement, or any matter whatsoever, touching this agreement, between the parties to this deed or their legal representatives etc., the same shall be referred to and settled by arbitration as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties."
The petitioners contend that notwithstanding the assurance under the aforesaid agreement to -5- NC: 2023:KHC:44052 CMP No. 612 of 2022 cause conveyance of the residential apartment described in Schedule 'B' to the agreement, the respondents have not taken any action. The petitioners were constrained to approach the jurisdictional consumer Forum, and the petitioners' complaint is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach a proper Forum.
Ms. Krithika Bhat K, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the afore, submits that the petitioners have caused notice calling upon the respondents to execute the sale deed and there is an untenable reply, and when the arbitration notice dated 01.06.2022 [Annexure-F] is issued, there is no response. On perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be allowed appointing a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru. Hence, the following: -6-
NC: 2023:KHC:44052 CMP No. 612 of 2022 ORDER
a) The petition is allowed.
b) Sri. H. M. Nanjundaswamy, a retired District Judge, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Centre.
c) The Registry is directed to communicate this order [by E-mail] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru and also to Sri.H. M. Nanjundaswamy, a retired District Judge, Address: No.19, 2nd Cross Road, Suvarna Badavane, Nagarbhavi 1 st Stage, Chandra Layout Extension, II -7- NC: 2023:KHC:44052 CMP No. 612 of 2022 Stage, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru-560 039 E-mail id:- [email protected]] as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.
d) The office is directed to return the original documents after retaining a photocopy of the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE RB