Karnataka High Court
M/S Everest Industries Ltd vs M/S Mann & Hummel Filter Pvt Ltd on 5 August, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
C.M.P No.14/2016
BETWEEN:
M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORAT ED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A-32,
GENESIS, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MUTHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110044.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER,
MR. ALOK MISHRA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH B J, ADV.)
AND:
M/S MANN & HUMMEL FILTER PVT. LTD.,
PLOT NO.19, PHASE-II, SECTOR-5,
BAWAL INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE,
BAWAL, DISTRICT REWARI,
HARYANA-123501.
BRANCH OFFICE AT ALSO
M/s. MANN & HUMMEL FILTER PVT. LTD.,
PLOT NO.231/1, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
2ND STAGE, 3RD PHASE,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BANGALORE-560058.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY MS. MEENAKSHY K NATESAN, ADV. FOR
SRI. GERALD MANOHARAN, ADV.)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5, 6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING
THIS COURT TO APPOINT THE SUITABLE ARBITRAL
TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTES THAT
HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE
RESPONDENT IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking that an appropriate Arbitrator be appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties.
2. The petitioner and the respondents have entered into a Contract as at Annexure-A to the petition. The said agreement provides that in the event of there being any dispute with regard to the same, the matter is to be resolved by arbitration. To the said effect, there is no dispute between the parties that any issue arising amongst them is to be resolved by an Arbitrator. The petitioner through the notice dated 03.08.2015 issued to the respondent had suggested the name of the Arbitrator on 3 their behalf. However, the respondent did not agree to the suggestion made by the petitioner, but had suggested a different name to be appointed as the Arbitrator as seen from the notice dated 02.09.2015. Therefore the said position indicates that insofar as the matter to be resolved by arbitration and that an Arbitrator is to be appointed, there is no dispute between the parties. However, since they have not agreed upon the Arbitrator suggested by each of them, it is appropriate that this Court appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. At an earlier instance, when notices were exchanged by the parties, they had suggest an Arbitrator who was a retired Judge of the High Court.
3. Therefore in the present circumstance, I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to appoint Sri Justice Pradeep D. Waingankar, a former Judge of this Court to act as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. A copy of this order be sent to the Arbitration 4 Centre, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru- 560 001 for processing the matter further in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka (Domestic and International) Rules, 2012 (as amended in 2016). Learned counsel for the parties may also approach the Arbitration Centre and comply with the formalities.
4. Learned Arbitrator appointed under this order shall enter upon reference and resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law and in compliance of the Rules governing the Arbitration Centre.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms