M/S Daya M K Developers (P) Ltd vs Sri V Ranganath Prabhakar on 28 May, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Daya M K Developers (P) Ltd vs Sri V Ranganath Prabhakar on 28 May, 2012

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

F\ FliP. 1 hUH LOt NT OF KARN\T AKA AT B \NGALORE

                 DATED TIllS PhIL 2                                            DA\ OF MAY 2012

                                                             BEFORE

            Fl-IF HO\ REF YiN. .11 SIB B A JR J,G1 N.JAt

                                              C M P. NO, 129/2008

BFTWF EN

M/s.Dixa M.K Dcx dopers (LI Ltd.
A °"' iv incorporated under the
  ornpanies Vt 1996 baring its
integrated office at No.16.
3W 13 Main
             Road K R.Road
Obalappa Garden, Bangalore.H2,
Repn senh I by its Managing
DHeeto Sn LA Sridhar Raj I i.                                                            EEl IRONER

           (Br Sri L\ahira; Adx .1

JVNL)

                              1L.                 In 1 J.shcxci
   N    I ue Jacara'4aii.
       Llarlit

       I              '           I       i            âiHirr

  B        lo   SrI,Fc1FgoI ttI C] deIl ka x
                II'

   I                              \ it            I    [

   B'                         F                       Sb   Cr:oi       iC r.
   &d             I                       I

   -              I       -
                                                                       '   U   I,,
   I              '1                  1   1       L ol
                                                    o
                                                    1              I                 -




                                          C   F   1    -
                                                              i'
                                   -2-


     4. Smt.R.Savithrl,
        D/o.Late Mr.Vijaya Rangan,
        Aged about 47 years,
        residing at No.5 18, 25i1 Cross,
        Banashankarl 2M Stage,
        Bangalore 70.
                   -




 5. Sri.V.Ranmprasad,
    Son of Late R.Vijayarangam,
    Aged about 59 years,
    Residing at No.43,
    18111 main Road,
    Padmanabhanagar,
    Bangalore 560 070.
                  -
                                                 ..   .RESPONDENTS
          (By Sri.B.Sharath Kumar, Adv. for R4 & R5,
              Sri.V.Ranganath Prabhalcar, (party-in-personi)


      This C.M.P. Is filed under Section 11(5) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, prayIng to
appoint any retired District Judge or any other
Competent person as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate
upon the dispute under the Joint Department
Agreement dated 28.06.2003 vide Annexure A' that has
arisen between the parties and etc.

     This C.M.P. coming on for admission, this day, the
Court made the following:


                              ORDER

An application LA.NoJ/2012 Is filed by one Sri.V.Ramaprasad to get himself Impleaded. Application is allowed. The Applicant shall be added as supplemental respondent No.5.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to amend the cause title 3 this petition is filed under Sertion 11(6) of the Arbitration and Con lb tion Act The petitioner Company is Builders and promoters of the property in an around Bangalore City. The respondents are the absolute owners of the property in question. A joint development agreement was enteied into between the parties on 2SM62OO3 Suffice ft to note that certain differences have arisen between the parties with reference to the clauses of the Joint Development Agreement hence th proceedings tire nitiaf ccl under Sec ft in 9 of th Act hefor the amed f)istrict J idge 4 Ai Na araj I ncd in ipp i p tn nit t e I I r Cl I I -4- Annexure 'B. A perusal of Annexure 'B' does not disclose that there is any indication that the dispute is required to be resolved by appointing an Arbitrator.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Concifiatio n Act would refer to the appointment of Arbitrators and sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act indicates that, if a party fails to appoint an Arbitrator withIn 30 days from the date of receipt of the request to do so from the other party, the petition is required to be filed under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act.

6. A perusal of Annexure 'B' notice discloses that no such request is made by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator. Since, the peti tion Is filed without issuing a proper notice, I am of the view that the petition is not maintainable.

Petition stands dismissed.

3dJ jUDGE Sn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court