Karnataka High Court
M/S.Green Earth Realties And ... vs Trishul Developers on 8 August, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08th DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
C.M.P.NO.143 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
M/S.GREEN EARTH REALTIES AND
DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.58/4, MUNI REDY INDUSTRIAL AREA,
KUDLU VILLAGE, SINGASANDRA POST
BANGALORE-560068.
REP. MR. SUNIL.O.G ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SREENIDHI V, ADV. FOR
SREENIDHI LAW CHAMBERS )
AND
1. TRISHUL DEVELOPERS
NO.9, ASHA ALI ASKAR CROSS ROAD
OPP CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE-560052
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
2. K PRAKASH SHETTY
S/O LATE MADHAV SHETTY
MANAGING PARTNER
TRISHUL DEVELOPERS
NO.9, ASHA,
ALI ASKAR CROSS ROAD,
2
OPP CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560052
3. SMT ASHA P SHETTY
W/O K PRAKSH SHETTY
PARTNER
TRISHUL DEVELOPERS
NO.9, ASHA, ALI ASKAR CROSS ROAD,
OPP CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560052
4. M/S TRISHUL BUILDTECH AND
INFRASTRUCTURES PVT LTD
A JOINT STOCK COMPANY,
HAVING ITS REG
OFFICE AT NO.9, ' ASHA'
ALI ASKAR CROSS ROAD,
OPP CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE-560052.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.DEVIPRASAD SHETTY ADV. FOR R2, R3 & R4,
SMT. NAGASHREE M.C. HCGP FOR R1)
-------
THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT,1996 PRAYING, FOR THE REASONS STATED
THEREIN, THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO APPOINT MR. JUSTICE M.P. CHINNAPPA,
RETIRED JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA OR ANY OTHER ARBITRATOR DEEMED
FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AS SOLE ARBITRATOR
TO ADJUDICATE THE DIPSUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS
IN RESPECT OF THE MOU DATED 31/05/2008, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CMP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for appointment of Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes that have arisen between the parties in respect of memorandum of understanding dated 31.05.2008. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent on 31.05.2008 and the same is reduced to writing in the form of memorandum of understanding as per Annexure-A. However, disputes have arisen between the parties. Subsequently, there were exchange of notices, but the disputes are not resolved amicably. Finally, the petitioner issued notice to the respondents invoking arbitration clause contained in the Memorandum of Understanding. Respondent No.1 sent his reply. However, respondent No.1 does not deny the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties. The tenor of reply by the respondents also reveals that disputes exist between the parties and 4 they are not settled. Respondent No.1 has approached the Civil Court at Mangalore under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for interim reliefs.
2. Having heard the learned advocates on both sides, this Court is of the opinion that it is just and necessary to appoint an arbitrator for resolution of disputes between the parties. Clause 16 of the Memorandum of Understanding contains the arbitration agreement between the parties.
3. Accordingly, the following order is made:-
a. Justice R. Gururajan, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, 'Sree Harikrupa', No.504, 5th Floor, Sri. Chitrapur Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., 15th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003 is appointed as Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The learned Arbitrator, on receipt of a 5 copy of this order, shall enter upon reference, issue notice to the parties and then proceed to resolve the dispute, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
b. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator, forthwith. Office is further directed to return all the original papers, if any, filed along with the petition to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to produce before the learned arbitrator.
The original Memorandum of Understanding is directed to be returned to the petitioner.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-