Karnataka High Court
Mphasis Limited vs Rci Cash Management Services Private on 22 October, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.69 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
MPHASIS LIMITED,
BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
MARATHALLI OUTER RING ROAD,
DODDANEKUNDI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 093.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR.HEMANTH ANANTH RAM.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.DHANANJAY JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RCI CASH MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE
LIMITED,
RCI HOUSE, FIRST FLOOR,
SY NO.83, NH - 7,
NEAR DHOLA-RI-DHANI,
KOMPALLY,
SECUNDERABED - 500 014.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO A) TO
CONSTITUTE AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BY APPOINTMENT OF A
SUITABLE PERSON AS THE SOLE ARTITRATOR FOR THE
ADJUDICATION OF THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SAID CLAUSE 16(5) (B) OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
THIS C.M.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The respondent has been served and has remain unrepresented and has not contested this petition.
2. The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioner-Mphasis Limited against the respondent-RCI Cash Management Services Private Limited seeking an appointment of the Sole Arbitrator in pursuance of Clause-16 (5) of the Service Agreement vide Annexure-A dated 24.01.2015.
3. Clause-6.1(A) of the said Agreement, which is an Arbitration clause reads as under:-
"16(5) Governing Law and Dispute
Resolution:
a. This Agreement shall be governed and
construed in accordance with the laws of India and the courts of Bangalore alone and no other courts shall be entitled to entertain and try any 3 dispute or matter relating to or arising out of this Agreement. Any dispute, difference, controversy or claim between the Parties (each a "Disputing Party" and together the "Disputing Parties" arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination or validity thereof ("Dispute") shall, upon the written request ("Request") of any Disputing Party duly served be referred to the authorised representatives of the Disputing Parties for resolution. The authorised representatives shall promptly meet and attempt to negotiate in good faith a resolution of the Dispute.
b. If the representatives are not able to resolve the disputes within 30 (thirty) days after the dispute is referred to them, all such disputes will be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by a sole arbitrator to be jointly appointed by both parties. If both the parties do not agree upon the name of the sole arbitrator, then by three arbitrators, one being appointed by each party and the two arbitrators so appointed in turn appointing the third arbitrator. c. The proceedings of the Arbitration shall be conducted in English language and place of hearing shall be Bangalore."
4
4. It is submitted that the requisite notice of request for reference to arbitration was given by the petitioner to the respondent dated 10.11.2017 vide Annexure-F. No reply has been sent by the respondent to the said notice. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this petition to appoint the Sole Arbitrator to resolve their disputes.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the aforesaid Arbitration Clause contemplates that any dispute between the parties to the agreement shall be referred to adjudication by sole arbitrator at Bangalore under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is necessary to appoint a former Judge of High Court of Karnataka as an Arbitrator in the instant case.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as stated supra, since the Arbitration clause exists in the Agreement entered into between the parties and an arbitral dispute also exists, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition deserves to 5 be allowed under Section 11 of the Act and an independent Arbitrator deserves to be appointed.
7. The learned counsel has fairly agreed to the appointment of Sri. Justice K. N. Phaneendra, former Judge, High Court of Karnataka to act as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as per the Rules governing the Arbitration Centre at Bangalore.
8. Accordingly, this petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is disposed of by appointing Sri. Justice K. N. Phaneendra, former Judge, High Court of Karnataka to enter into the said reference of Arbitration and act as the Sole Arbitrator in the present case in the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.
All claims and contentions of any of the parties including jurisdiction, limitation, etc., are left/kept open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
6
A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter, on administrative side and also to Sri. Justice K. N. Phaneendra, former Judge, High Court of Karnataka to the address available with the said Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru.
Registry is directed to return all original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds/-