Karnataka High Court
Vivek U Shah vs Smt Gangamma on 25 April, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
C.M.P.No.115/2012
BETWEEN :
VIVEK U SHAH
S/O UMESH D SHAH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 419
10TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN
J P NAGAR II PHASE
BANGALORE-560078. ...PETITIONER
( By Sri. G MANIVANNAN, ADV. )
AND :
1 SMT GANGAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 599
DASAPPANAPALYA, CHIKKABANAVARA
YESWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-560090
2 SMT. KOTAMMA
W/O LATE YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 549
DASAPPANAPALYA, CHIKKABANAVARA
YESWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-560090
3 SMT. THOLSAMMA
@ NAGAMMA
W/O LATE BYRAPPA
2
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT KURUBARA
BEEDHI, WARD NO. 2
THIRUMALAI, MAGADI TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120
4 SMT. ASHWATHAMMA
W/O ANANTHARAMU
AGED ABOUT 58YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 431-C
CHIKKABANAVARA
YESWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-560090
5 SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 600, ASHIRWAD NILAYA
DASAPPANAPALYA, CHIKKABANAVARA
YESWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-560084. ...RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. VISHNU D BHAT, ADV. )
This Civil Misc. Petition is filed U/s.11(6)of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying, for the reasons
stated therein, that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint
an arbitrator to arbitrate upon the disputes/ differences between
the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the agreement to
sell dated 17/09/2011, in the interest of justice and equity.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking appointment of Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. The respondents have appeared and filed their 3 objection statement.
2. The petitioner and the respondents have entered into an agreement of sale dated 17.9.2011. The terms of the agreement have not been complied and in that regard, dispute has arisen between the parties. The agreement vide Clause 19(b) provides for settlement of any dispute by way of arbitration. The petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause by issuing the notice dated 27.6.2012. The respondents have issued a reply to the same disputing several aspects and have not accepted the proposal made to refer the matter to arbitration. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The respondents in their objection statement have once again raised several issues with regard to the reasons for which the agreement could not be performed. Reference is made with regard to the nature of the property as it stood at the time of agreement and the obligation that was cast on the parties relating to the conversion of the same. 4
4. Though these aspects have been contended, in my opinion, this Court need not go into those aspects of the matter inasmuch as that in itself would indicate that there are certain disputes between the parties, which have to be resolved in the manner known to law. In the instant case, since admittedly there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, the dispute can only be resolved through arbitration. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner having invoked the said arbitration clause has also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking for interim measures. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that, a sole Arbitrator requires to be appointed so as to resolve the dispute between the parties.
5. Accordingly, Sri.M.N.Shankar Bhat, Retired District Judge, No.61, 4th Cross, R.M.V. 2nd Stage, Judicial Officers' Layout, Sanjaynagar, Bangalore-560 094, is appointed to be the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. The learned Arbitrator shall now enter 5 upon the reference, settle the terms of the arbitration and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The parties shall now appear before the learned Arbitrator on 3.6.2013 and on such appearance, the Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference and thereafter regulate the proceedings.
The Petition is allowed in the above terms. Registry to return the documents immediately sought for by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
SD/-
JUDGE KNM/-