Karnataka High Court
Sri.V.Srinivas vs M/S. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Pvt Ltd on 10 March, 2014
Author: Mohan .M.Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
CMP No.115/2013
BETWEEN:
1.SRI V.SRINIVAS
S/O LATE K VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2.SRI S. GANESH
S/O. V. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
3.KUM S. CHANDINI
D/O. V. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
4.SRI S. MITHUN
S/O. V. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 75, SECOND FLOOR,
8TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560 027. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V. VIJAYASHEKAR GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
1.M/S. S.J.R. PRIME CORPORATION PVT LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS
REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.1, S J R PRIMUS
7TH & 8TH FLOOR
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
7TH BLOCK
BANGALORE-560075
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
-2-
SRI J VIJAYA REDDY
2.SRI V KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O LATE K VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
3.SRI V HARISH KUMAR
S/O LATE K VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. SMT K. ASHWINI
D/O. V. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
5. SRI.K. VINOD KUMAR
S/O. V. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
6. SRI.K. PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O. V. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
7. SRI.H. JAIKISHAN
S/O. V. HARISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
8. SRI.H. RAKSHITH
S/O. V. HARISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
SINCE R-7 AND 8 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY
THEIR FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN
SRI V. HARISH KUMAR, THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN
R-2 TO 8 ARE
R/AT NO.75, 8TH CROSS
GROUND & FIRST FLOOR
WILSON GARDEN
BANGALORE-560027 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARATH G, ADV. FOR R-1))
THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER U/S.11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING THIS
HON'BLE COURT TO APPOINT ANY LEARNED RETIRED DISTRIC
OR HON'BLE HIGH COURT JUDGE AS ARBITRATOR IN THE
PRESENT CASE TO RESOLVE THE EXISTING DISPUTE
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AS
-3-
IN VIEW OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HAS DECEIVED AND
DEPRIVED AND NEGLECTED AND ALSO COMMITTED BREACH
OF THE CONTRACT, UNDER THE JDA DATED 14/12/2011 AND
BY ENTERED INTO AFRESH JDA AND GPA WITH THE
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 DATED 25/04/2013 WITHOUT
CANCELLING THE JDA DATED 14/12/2011.
THIS CMP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
The petitioners have sought for appointment of arbitrator to redress the subsisting dispute between the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 3 as per Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act').
2. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 entered into a Joint Development Agreement with respondent No.1 herein as per Annexure F dated 14.12.2011 agreeing on certain terms. Thereafter petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 executed power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1 herein on 14.12.2011 as per Annexure G. Subsequently disputes have cropped up between the petitioners on one hand and the respondents on the other.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.1 and other respondents have entered into a -4- different joint development agreement among themselves ignoring the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners want to pursue the joint development agreement entered into between themselves and respondents as per Annexure F dated 14.12.2011. Despite issue of notices, the disputes are not resolved between the parties. Ultimately legal notice came to be issued by the petitioners through their Advocate as per Annexure K dated 20.05.2013 calling upon the respondents to refer the matter for adjudication before the Arbitrator. The petitioners, in the said notice have even mentioned the names of the arbitrators.
4. The respondents have not replied to the said notice.
5. Thereafter this petition is filed under Section 11 (6) of the Act seeking appointment of arbitrator for deciding the dispute between the parties. Clause 29.4 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 14.12.2011 makes it clear that in the event of the parties being unable to resolve the dispute by conciliation they may -5- mutually agree to refer the matter to arbitrator under the provisions of Act. It is made clear in the said clause that the award made by the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. Since the first respondent has not come forward to appoint arbitrator as per the arbitration clause found in the Joint Development Agreement, the petitioners are justified in approaching this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act seeking appointment of arbitrator. Since the dispute has arisen and there was also exchange of notices, it is just and necessary to appoint arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute.
6. Accordingly the following order is made :-
Sri Subhash T. Gogi, Retired District and Sessions Judge, Krishna No.45 (Old No.369), 8th Cross, (60 ft Road, 2nd Block, RMV 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560 094, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The learned Arbitrator, on receipt of a copy of this order shall enter upon the reference, issue notice to the parties and then proceed to resolve -6- the dispute, in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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 petitioners to enable them to produce before the learned Arbitrator.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG*