M/S Rajarajeshwari Buildcon Pvt Ltd., vs Mr. B.N.Vishwanath on 27 April, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Rajarajeshwari Buildcon Pvt Ltd., vs Mr. B.N.Vishwanath on 27 April, 2017

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL 2017

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

                C.M.P. NO.114/2016

BETWEEN :

M/s.Rajarajeshwari Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.,
'Sree Ranga', No.67/1,
Netkalappa Circle,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore - 560 004.
Represented by its Director,
Mr.Ramanlal M Sha.                     ...PETITIONER

     (By Sri.Ajit P.B., Adv.)

AND :

Mr.B.N.Vishwanath,
Aged about 61 years,
S/o.Late Mr.T.V.Narayanaswamy,
No.12, 28th Cross, II Main,
7th Block, Jayanagar West,
Bangalore - 560 082.                 ...RESPONDENT

     (By Sri.B.N.Jayadeva, Adv.
         Sri.Lakshminarayana, AGA on I.A. No.1/16)
                       . . . .

      This C.M.P. is filed under Section 11(5) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to
appoint any retired High Court Judge of this Hon'ble
Court, as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the contra
claims between the petitioner and respondent as per the
                            -2-


Annexure `A' before the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru
to serve the interest of justice and equity.

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

                       ORDER

I.A. No.1/16 does not survive for consideration since the issue as raised in the application has already been considered elaborately in W.P. No.58221/2016 and the said order would apply herein as well. In terms of the same I.A. No.1/16 stands disposed of.

2. The petitioner and the respondents have entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 07.08.2013 regarding which certain disputes have arisen in the light of the actions which have been taken in that regard. The Joint Development Agreement dated 07.08.2013 provides for Arbitration as per Clause 35 of the Agreement. It is in that view the petitioner is before this Court seeking that the learned Arbitrator be appointed as the parties have not agreed upon a common Arbitrator though the petitioner had issued a notice dated 29.02.2016.

-3-

3. Insofar as the difference between the parties, in any event in the present petition, this Court need not advert to the same as those are issues which are required to be considered by the learned Arbitrator. The fact that the Joint Development Agreement contains an Arbitration clause is evident from the said document. That apart invoking the said clause, the petition under Section 9 has also been filed before the Court below in AA No.73/16 which is also pending consideration. If that be the position, the learned Arbitrator is required to be appointed by leaving open all contentions of the parties to be urged before the Arbitrator.

4. In that light Sri.Justice R.Gururajan, a former Judge of this Court is appointed to act as a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

The Arbitration shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules governing the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru.

-4-

Registry, to dispatch a copy of this order to the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru. The parties represented by their learned counsel to also approach the Arbitration Centre and file necessary papers.

The learned Arbitrator shall thereupon enter reference, decide the matter and resolve the disputes between the parties in accordance with law by adhering to the Rules governing the Arbitration proceedings before the Bengaluru Arbitration Centre.

Registry, to return the papers if any, sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court