Karnataka High Court
Dr Ashish Madan Gowari vs M/S Venkatesha Education Society on 26 September, 2022
Author: B.M. Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M. Shyam Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
Review Petition No.586/2022
In C.M.P. No.529/2021
Between
Dr. Ashish Madan Gowari,
Son of Madan Ganapath Gowari,
R/at Riddhi Siddhi Residency,
B 1304, Plot No.53A,
Sector 3 New Panvel,
Navi Mumbai-410206,
Maharashtra.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Rahul Thakur &
Sri. Ravi Kumar M.B., Advocates)
And
1. M/s. Venkatesha Education Society,
A society registered under the Mysore
Societies Registration Act, 1961,
Having its Registered at Old No.60/61,
New No.106/108, Charles Campbell Road,
Cox Town, Bengaluru-560005,
Represented through their
Authorised Signatory,
Mr. M.J.Mohan.
2
2. MJV Medical College Research Hospital,
An ISO9001:2015 Certified Institution,
Affiliated with Rajeev Gandhi University of
Health Sciences, Bengaluru & Recognized by
Medical of India, New Delhi,
Having Address at 30th Milestone, NH 75,
Dandupalya, Kolathur Post,
Hoskote Bengaluru-562114.
...Respondents
--------
This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1
read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
paying this Hon'ble Court to allow this petition; review the
order dated 02.06.2022 passed in C.M.P. No.529/2021 in
the interest of justice and equity.
This Review Petition coming on for Admission
through Video Conferencing this day, the Court made the
following:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed for review of this Court's common order in C.M.P. No.523/2021 and the connected matters. The petitioner is a respondent in C.M.P. No.529/2021 which is disposed of by this Court by the said common order. This Court has disposed of all these petitions appointing Sri. Ashok L.Pujar, a retired District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute and conduct proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules that governed the said Centre.
Sri. Rahul Thakur, the learned counsel who appears along with Sri. M.B.Ravi Kumar for the petitioner, submits that Sri. M.B.Ravi Kumar has entered his appearance for the respondent in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition but his name was not shown, and the respondent's contention that a clause in the admission form, which is relied upon, 4 the petitioners-respondents to assert an arbitration agreement cannot be an arbitration agreement for the purposes of initiation of arbitration proceedings, was not brought to the Court's notice. This Court's order forecloses the petitioner's defense in this regard and therefore, this Court must, insofar as the petitioner, review the order dated 2nd June 2022.
The petitioner's contention that a clause in the admission form would only be a standard format contract and therefore would not satisfy the requirement of meeting of minds to agree for resolution of dispute by arbitration, can always be considered by the learned Arbitrator. This Court, at this stage, cannot definitely opine that the respondents' application under Section 11 must be rejected for that reason. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition observing that, notwithstanding the appointment of the learned Arbitrator, it should be open to 5 the petitioner to take up such defense as permissible under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In fact, similar liberty is reserved by this Court insofar as the respondents who were heard at the time of the disposal of the petitions on 2nd June 2022.
The petition stands disposed of with observation as above said regarding petitioner's liberty to take such defense in the arbitral proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms