M/S Metro Cash And Carry India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Mohan Aluminium Pvt Ltd on 2 July, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Metro Cash And Carry India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Mohan Aluminium Pvt Ltd on 2 July, 2012

Bench: Ajit J. Gunjal

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

      DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF JULY 2012

                      BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT J. GUNJAL

              C.M.P.NO.53 OF 2012

BETWEEN:
M/S METRO CASH AND CARRY INDIA PVT LTD
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
SY.NO.26/3, A BLOCK
WARD NO.9, INDUSTRIAL SUBURBS,
SUBRAMANYANAGARA,
BANGALORE 560 055
REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR JAYADEEP BALAKRISHNAN
MANAGER LEGAL.
                                    ... PETITIONER

(By Sri : ANUP PRADESH.E, ADV, FOR
          ANUP S SHAH LAW FIRM, ADV., )

AND

M/S MOHAN ALUMINIUM PVT LTD
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
228, UPPER PLACE ORCHARDS
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 080
REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECGTOR
MR RAJESH JAIN.                 ......RESPONDENT

(RESPONDENT SERVED)
                           2


     THIS CIVIL MISC.PETITION IS FILED U/S.11(6) OF
THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 PRAYING
TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE
DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER
AND THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING DATED 15/05/2008, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS CMP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                     ORDER

The petitioner and the respondent have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for sale and purchase of the petition schedule property. The petitioner is engaged in the business of cash and carry trading, selling various products and for this purpose they have set up distribution centres. Suffice it to note that the Memorandum of Understanding for the sale of property was entered into on 15.5.2008. Respondent agreed to sell the petition property for total consideration of `66,70,77,840/-. The petitioner paid a sum of `10.00 lakhs as advance towards Earnest money, but, however, respondent have not 3 come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, notice was issued invoking the arbitral clause for refund of earnest money. The same was responded by denying that the arbitration clause can be invoked. Hence, this petition.

2. Respondent though served is unrepresented.

3. The Memorandum of Understanding which is produced at Annexure-A has an Arbitration agreement at clause 9. Clauses 9(b) and 9(c) would refer the matter to arbitration and also place of Arbitration i.e., jurisdiction.

4. Having regard to the fact that there is arbitral clause and dispute has arisen and exhange of notices having taken place, the matter is required to be resolved by an Arbitrator. Hence the following:-

ORDER a. Petition is allowed. 4 b. Sri. N.S. Sangolli, Retired District and Sessions Judge, No.415/2, 'F' Block, Sahakaranagar(Next to Hebbal Tank), Bangalore-92, is appointed as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. The Sole Arbitrator shall enter reference and cause notice to the parties.

Registry to communicate this order to the Arbitrator alongwith addresses of the parties as well as counsel.

Sd/-

JUDGE *mn/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court