Karnataka High Court
Smt.Prema V Chelvaraj vs M/S. Silverline Resorts Private ... on 18 December, 2024
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:52504
CMP No. 86 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 86 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.PREMA V CHELVARAJ
W/O. LATE V. CHELVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 204, 3RD A CROSS
GROUND FLOOR,
NEAR RESIDENCY SCHOOL
KASTURINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 043
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. IAN LEWIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1.
signed by M/S. SILVERLINE RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
PRAKASH N
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
KARNATAKA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.54, BRIGADE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. DAWOOD MOHAMMED.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. MANEESHA KONGOVI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
11 (5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,1996,
R/W CLAUSE 2 OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS BY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:52504
CMP No. 86 of 2023
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME,
1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT, MR. VIKRAM RAMAKRISHNAN,
ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS OR ALTERNATIVELY,
ANY OTHER RETIRED JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT FOUND
SUITABLE, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATION OF
DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
THE RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 31 OF THE LEASE
DEED DATED 30/08/2008 (AT ANNEXURE-E) AND GRANT SUCH
OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for appointment of an Arbitrator in light of the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent and reliance is placed on Clause 31 of the Deed of Lease dated 30.08.2008 at Annexure-E.
2. Perused the Deed of Lease at Annexure-E which is a registered Lease Deed entered into between Mr.C.Padmanabhan and M/s.Silverline Resorts Private Limited, the respondent herein.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is the mother of Late.C.Padmanabhan and the petitioner represents that she is the legal heir. It is further submitted that disputes have arisen -3- NC: 2024:KHC:52504 CMP No. 86 of 2023 in relation to the Deed of Lease between the parties and in light of which reference to arbitration is sought to be made.
4. Perused Clause 31 of the Deed of Lease dated 30.08.2008 which provides for resolution of dispute by arbitration.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has filed detailed statement of objections. The objections raised are that the owner of the property are M/s.Monarch Citadel Private Limited for which Mr.C.Shamsunder and Mr.C.Padmanabhan were share holders. It is specifically contended that petitioners herein are not the owners of the property.
6. It is further submitted that a suit has been filed by M/s.Monarch Citadel Private Limited against the petitioners and respondent in O.S.No.220/2024 which is pending adjudication in which there is an order of restraint against the petitioners from interfering with the possessory rights, peaceful possession and ownership of M/s.Monarch Citadel Private Limited. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:52504 CMP No. 86 of 2023
7. It is further submitted that substantive claim made by the petitioners is barred by time. Various other contentions have been raised.
8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that in the absence of M/s.Monarch Citadel Private Limited, reference cannot be made as it would interfere with certain orders passed by the Civil Court.
9. It is to be noticed that the registered Lease Deed has been entered into between Mr.C.Padmanabhan and respondent herein. It is also a matter that comes out from the Deed of Lease that Units mentioned in the schedule are in possession of the respondent and respondent had been paying rents to Mr.C.Padmanabhan.
10. Though various contentions have been raised regarding M/s.Monarch Citadel Private Limited, all such contentions cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. Prima-facie existence of agreement with clause for arbitration would by itself be sufficient to make reference to arbitration. That the plain reading of Deed of Lease makes out relationship -5- NC: 2024:KHC:52504 CMP No. 86 of 2023 of Lessor and Lessee and respondent has been paying rent earlier to Mr.C.Padmanabhan.
11. Implication regarding proceedings before the Civil Court in the suit between Monarch Citadel Private Limited and the petitioner herein are matters to be decided by the Arbitrator. The fact that there is dispute is borne out from the notice of the petitioner at Annexure-R. Petitioner has specifically asserted regarding disputes that have arisen regarding non-compliance with the terms of lease.
12. The contention raised that the petitioner is not the owner and as raised in the statement of objections are matters involving questions of facts and are best left to be decided by the Arbitrator.
13. The registered lease evidences the relationship between the parties viz., Mr.C.Padmanabhan on the one hand and the respondent on the other. The petitioner is stated to be the mother and sole legal heir of Mr.C.Padmanabhan which relationship is not seriously disputed. It is specifically asserted by the petitioner that the last payment of rent has been made by the respondent on 03.07.2021. The question of limitation -6- NC: 2024:KHC:52504 CMP No. 86 of 2023 for recovery of rent may required to be looked at as regards various aspects of when it became due, coming into force of enhancement clause etc. It cannot be stated that such claim is ex-facie barred. What portion of the claims are time barred are all matter which requires a detailed enquiry and hence must be left to be decided by the Arbitrator.
14. Accordingly, case is made out for exercise of power under Section 11 (6) of the Act. All contentions regarding relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as raised in the statement of objections, area of occupation as well as other objections raised in the statement of objections, limitation, objections to claims made are kept open and would be subject to adjudication in the proceedings before the Arbitrator.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The dispute is referred for redressal by way of arbitration.
13. Sri.I.S.Antin, Retired District and Sessions Judge, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter into the said reference of Arbitration and act as the Sole Arbitrator in the present case in the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & -7- NC: 2024:KHC:52504 CMP No. 86 of 2023 International), Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.
(i) All claims and contentions of any of the parties including jurisdiction, limitation, etc., are left/kept open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
(ii) A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter, on administrative side and also to Sri.I.S.Antin, Retired District and Sessions Judge to the address available with the said Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru.
(iii) Registry is directed to return all original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP