Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shankar Chidambaram vs Mrs M B Nagarathna on 13 April, 2018

Author: Vineet Kothari

Bench: Vineet Kothari

                             1/4




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2018

                         BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

                   C.M.P.No.282/2017
                          C/W
                   C.M.P.No.283/2017


C.M.P.No.282/2017

Between:

Shankar Chidambaram
Aged about 50 years
S/o late Sri. T.G. Chidambaram
Residing at No.44/1, First Floor
2nd Main Road, Vyalikaval
Bengaluru-560 003.
                                           ... Petitioner
(By Mr. T.V. Vijay Raghavan, Advocate)

And:

Mrs. M.B. Nagarathna
Aged about 63 years
W/o Mr. H.R. Varadarajan
Residing at "Rathan", 20/1
3rd Main, K.H.M. Block
Ganganagar, Bengaluru-560032.

Also at Shop No.2, Ground Floor
No.44/1, 2nd Main Road
Vyalikaval, Bengaluru-560003.
                                         ... Respondent
(By Mr. P. Chidananda, Advocate)
                                Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.282/2017
                                                   C/W C.M.P.No.283/2017
                Shankar Chidambaram & Anr. Vs. Mrs. M.B. Nagarathna & Anr.

                                2/4



                                      **

       This C.M.P is filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, praying to appoint an
Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arisen between the
petitioner and the Respondent in terms of the Clause 36 of
the Agreement of Lease dated 05-04-2016 & etc.

C.M.P.No.283/2017

Between:

Jayanti Chidambaram
Aged about 52 years
D/o late Sri. T.G. Chidambaram
Residing at No.44/1, First Floor
2nd Main Road, Vyalikaval
Bengaluru-560003.
                                                          ... Petitioner
(By Mr. T.V. Vijay Raghavan, Advocate)

And:

Smt. Chethana Varadarajan
Aged about 31 years
W/o Mr. Yogesh Kumar
Residing at "Rathan", 20/1
3rd Main, K.H.M. Block
Ganganagar, Bengaluru-560032.

Also at Shop No.3, Ground Floor
No.44/1, 2nd Main Road
Vyalikaval, Bengaluru-560003.
                                                       ... Respondent
(By Mr. P. Chidananda, Advocate)

                                      **
                                Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.282/2017
                                                   C/W C.M.P.No.283/2017
                Shankar Chidambaram & Anr. Vs. Mrs. M.B. Nagarathna & Anr.

                                3/4

       This C.M.P is filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, praying to appoint an
Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arisen between the
petitioner and the Respondent in terms of the Clause 36 of
the Agreement of Lease dated 05-04-2016 & etc.

      These C.M.Ps. Coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:-

                            ORDER

Mr. T.V. Vijay Raghavan, Adv. for Petitioners Mr. P. Chidananda, Adv. for Respondents

1. The C.M.P.No.282/2017 under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioner- Shankar Chidambaram, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between himself and the Respondent - Mrs. M.B. Nagarathna.

2. The C.M.P.No.283/2017 under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioner- Jayanti Chidambaram, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute Date of Order 13-04-2018 C.M.P.No.282/2017 C/W C.M.P.No.283/2017 Shankar Chidambaram & Anr. Vs. Mrs. M.B. Nagarathna & Anr. 4/4 between herself and the Respondent - Smt. Chethana Varadarajan.

3. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Booz Allen and Hamlton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Limited and others (2011) 5 SCC 532, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petitions for appointment of an Arbitrator are not maintainable as the dispute is between the Landlord and a Tenant and the eviction of the tenant can be sought only under the said enactment governing the same.

4. Therefore, the present C.M.Ps. are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE BMV*