Karnataka High Court
M/S Tibetan Children'S Village vs Mr M Thimme Gowda on 25 September, 2020
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.86/2018
Between:
M/s. Tibetan Children's Village,
Sheshagirihalli, Bidadi Hobli,
Ramnagar District,
Bangalore - 562 109. ... Petitioner
(By Sri Chandrakanth Patil K., Advocate)
And:
1. Mr. M. Thimme Gowda,
S/o Mr. Muthe Gowda,
Aged 72 years,
2. Mrs. K. Leelavathi,
W/o Mr. M. ThimmeGowda,
Aged 52 years.
Since dead and Represented by her LRs
2(a) T. Sharath Gowda,
S/o M. Thimme Gowda,
R/o at No.602, 9th Cross,
III Main, Sadashivanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 080.
Also residing at -
No.65, Vani Vilas Road,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru - 560 004.
2
2(b) T. Swagath,
S/o M. Thimme Gowda,
R/o Hotel May Flower,
12th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
Also residing at -
No.65, Vani Vilas Road,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru - 560 004.
3. Mr. T. Suresh Gowda @ T. Suresh Kumar,
S/o Mr. M. Thimmegowda,
Aged 48 years.
4. Mr. T. PrasannaGowda @ T. Prasanna Kumar,
S/o Mr. M. Thimmegowda,
Aged 43 years.
5. Mr. T. RaghavendraGowda,
S/o Mr. M. Thimmegowda,
Aged 38 years.
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are residing at:
No.65, Vani Vilas Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore - 560 004.
6. Mr. Dasappa,
S/o Mr. Singraiah,
Aged 74 years,
Kanchugarunahalli,
Bidadi Post, Ramanagar Taluk - 562 109.
7. Mr. M.N. Manjunath,
S/o Mr. Narayanaswamy,
Aged 50 years,
ManchanaikanaHalli,
Bidadi Post,
Ramanagara Taluk - 562 109. ... Respondents
(By Sri Janardhan N.C., Advocate for R1, R3 & R6;
R2(a), R2(b), R4, R5 & R7 are served and unrepresented)
3
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section
11(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to
appoint Shri Mr. Basavaraj S. Sappannavar - District and
Sessions Judge (Retired) as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the
dispute in respect of the agreement to sell dated 25.02.2004,
namely Annexure 'A' pertaining to the agreement schedule
property in the interest of justice.
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for
admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute in respect of 'agreement to sell' dated 25.02.2004, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A.
2. It is stated that the petitioner and the respondents had entered into an 'agreement to sell' on 25.02.2004 whereby the respondents undertook to sell the properties morefully described in the 'agreement to sell' to the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that as the terms of agreement was not adhered to by the respondents herein, the legal notice at Annexure-B came to be issued to the respondents herein stating that 4 the terms of agreement were not adhered to by them and that had committed default in discharging the obligations placed on the respondents as per the 'agreement to sell' by not executing the sale deed in respect of an extent of land measuring 19 acres 15 guntas at Seshagirihalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. It is further submitted that as the respondents were not coming forward to execute the sale deed, a dispute had arisen requiring invocation of the arbitration Clause No.15 of 'agreement to sell' and to refer the matter for arbitration and to appoint an arbitrator.
3. It is submitted that the notice has been served on the respondents, but there has been no reply in that regard. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 submits that the 'agreement to sell' relates 5 to the year 2004 and the legal notice came to be issued only in the year 2018 and that therefore the claim is time barred.
5. Taking note of the fact that the 'agreement to sell' at Annexure-A is not in dispute and noticing the contents of legal notice, there is a dispute that has arisen between the parties. Hence, taking note of Clause-15 of 'agreement to sell', an arbitrator requires to be appointed.
6. As regards the contention that the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation, taking note of the limited scope of present proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which would be applicable in light of the notice issued in the year 2018 which it would be the first step in making the claim, the petition deserves to be allowed. 6
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Justice Sri A.V.Chandrashekara, a retired Judge of this Court is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter upon the reference and conduct the arbitration proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru as per the Arbitration & Conciliation Centre-Bengaluru (Domestic & International) Rules, 2012.
8. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru, forthwith. The original documents, if any, filed to be returned to the petitioners.
9. However, It is made clear that the contentions of the respondent as regards limitation are kept open for consideration by the arbitrator.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR