Karnataka High Court
Brahmi Constructions Pvt Ltd vs Ie Infra Pvt Ltd (Opc) on 18 November, 2022
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
-1-
RP No. 6 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
REVIEW PETITION NO.6 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. BRAHMI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,
NO.552, 13TH CROSS ROAD, 7TH MAIN
HIG HOUSING COLONY,
DOLLARS COLONY, RMV SECOND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 094.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR. N. RAMAPRIYAN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHINTAN CHINNAPPA M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. IE INFRA PVT. LTD., (OPC)
ALSO KNOWN AS INDIAN ESTATE INFRA,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.17, SATYA COMPLEX,
NEW KALIDASA ROAD, VANIVILAS MOHALLA,
Digitally signed by MYSURU-570 002.
USHA
NAGENAHALLI REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SHANMUKHAPPA
Location: High
MR. K. A. ANIL KUMAR.
Court of Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MILASH ARROL NORONHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 6-12-2019 PASSED
BY THIS COURT IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.352
OF 2018 (ANNEXURE-B).
-2-
RP No. 6 of 2021
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though review petition filed Under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not maintainable as no error is made out apparent on the face on record, but there is clear mistake pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph No.8 of the order dated 6-12-2019 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.352 of 2018 that as per Clause 18 of the Contract Agreement dated 11-2-2016, it is stated that:-
'each party shall be entitled to nominate one arbitrator each and the two arbitrators shall jointly nominate a third presiding arbitrator. The arbitrators shall give a reasoned award. The parties agree that any arbitration award shall be final and binding upon the parties.'
2. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that while passing the order in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.352 of 2018, the respondent was placed ex parte and thereby, he did not have the knowledge of appointment of single arbitrator. -3- RP No. 6 of 2021 Now, he prays to appoint two Arbitrators in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties.
3. Submission of the learned counsel are placed on record.
4. Accordingly, in the interest of justice to both the parties, review petition is disposed of by appointing Sri H.M. Nanjundaswamy, Former District Judge, as Arbitrator along with Sri M. Nagarajan, Former Judicial Member of C.A.T., who was already appointed and the two Arbitrators shall jointly nominate the third Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in terms of Clause 18 of the Contract Agreement dated 11-2-2016 entered into between the parties.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Sri H.M. Nanjundaswamy, Former District Judge, Sri M. Nagarajan, Former Judicial Member of C.A.T., and the Arbitration Centre, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE KVK