Karnataka High Court
M/S Micronova Singapore Pvt Ltd vs M/S Bharat Electronics Ltd on 6 August, 2013
Author: Dilip B.Bhosale
Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE
C.M.P. NO.65/2013
BETWEEN:
M/s.Micronova Singapore Pvt.Ltd
c/o Micronova Impex Pvt.Ltd.
No.89/2, Gandhibazar main road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004.
Rep. by its Director T.S.Devanathan.
...PETITIONER
(By Sri.T.B.Kiran Kumar, Adv.)
AND:
M/s.Bharat Electronics Ltd.,
Jalahalli post, Bangalore-560 013.
Represented by its DGM K.Ravindranath.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.P.D.Vishwanath, Adv.) This C.M.P. is filed under Section 11(4) r/w Sec.12(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the order No.15011/7/CMD dated 22.11.2012 referred to at Annexure-B appointing Sri.Suresh Katyal as arbitrator and direct the appointment of a sole arbitrator a retired District Judge for resolving the dispute that has arisen between the parties under the purchase order at Annexure-A, in the interest of justice.
-2-This C.M.P. coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-
PC:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies available under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. It is open to the petitioner to pursue remedies, if any, available in law, before the Arbitrator. If the petitioner makes any such application, I hope and trust that the Arbitrator shall consider the same in accordance with law. I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the right of the petitioner to pursue any such remedy, and as observed above, I am sure the Arbitrator shall deal with the same in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.