Karnataka High Court
Anand Yadav Gangadari vs M/ S Pushpam Reality on 21 April, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
C.M.P.NO.254/2016
BETWEEN:
1. ANAND YADAV GANGADARI,
S/O NARAYANA GANGADARI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
2. SMT. NAGALAKSHMI GANGADARI,
W/O ANANDAYADAV GANGADARI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 3660,
ANDREWS DRIVE APT.
NO.202 PLEASANTOWN,
CALIFORNIA, USA. -94558,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA
HOLDER MR. NARAYANA GANGADHARI,
S/O NARAYANA GANGADHARI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1/6,
CHEMMUMIYAPATE, KADAPA,
KADAPA - DISTRICT,
ANDRAPRADEESH - 516003. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI N.AMARESH, ADV.)
AND:
1. M/ S PUSHPAM REALITY
PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.191,
1ST BLOCK, EAST BYRASANDRA,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011,
2
REPRESENTED BY CEO
N.MANJUNATH REDDY.
2. MRS. R.S.VEENA,
W/O SRI MANJUNATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER OF THE COMPANY.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.191,
1ST BLOCK, EAST BYRASANDRA
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011. ... RESPONDENTS
(R1 IS SERVED )
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SEC. 11 (5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO (A) APPOINT ONE OF
THE BELOW MENTIONED PERSONS AS ARBITRATOR IN
THE ABOVE CASE FOR THE CONDUCT OF ARBITRAL
PROCEEDINGS AS PER SALE AGREEMENT DATED:
22/06/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND (i) MR. I.S.ANTIN
RETIRED DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KARNATAKA,
(ii) MR. ASHOK L. POOJAR, RETIRED DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KARNATAKA, (iii) MR. V.V.ANGADI,
RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARNATAKA
AND (iv) MR. NAGARAJU NAGURU, ADVOCATE OF HIGH
COURT, HYDERABAD, A.P. AND (B)) TO GIVE DIRECTION
TO THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE ARBITRATION
CHARGES EXPENSES OF THIS CASE AND ALSO OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES INCURRED BY THE
PETITIONERS.
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court in this petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. 3
2. The petitioners and the respondents have entered into the construction agreement as also the rental agreement as referred to in the petition. Cluase-14 of the construction agreement and Clause-28 of the rental agreement thereof provides for resolution of disputes between the parties through arbitration.
3. At an earlier point, since according to the petitioners herein, certain claim subsisted pursuant to the said agreements, O.S.No.223/2014 was filed before the Court at Hosur. In the said proceedings, the respondents herein had raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit in view of the existence of the arbitration clause between the parties. The said proceedings had resulted in filing a revision petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras and the High Court of Judicature at Madras while disposing of the said petition on 21.06.2016 has taken note of the fact that the Arbitrator would have to be appointed by this Court.
4
4. Accordingly, the parties had exchanged the notice invoking the arbitration clause and suggesting the name of the Arbitrator. The respondents herein had suggested a panel through the notice dated 12.08.2016 calling upon the petitioners herein to suggest one of the names as agreeable to them. The petitioners herein through their reply dated 31.08.2016 has chosen one of the name as suggested by the respondents herein. Despite the same, the respondents did not take any further steps to confirm the same and place the claim before the learned Arbitrator, so as to enable the learned Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. Though notice of this petition was served on the respondents, they have not chosen to appear and oppose this petition.
6. The sequence as noticed above would indicate that the dispute between the parties is to be resolved through arbitration and the names have also been 5 exchanged between the parties. Since, the name to which the petitioners have given consent is also one of the names which had been suggested by the respondents herein, Sri V.V.Angadi, retired District and Sessions Judge is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. The learned Arbitrator shall enter upon reference and conduct the proceedings in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Rules governing the Arbitration Centre.
7. Registry to dispatch a copy of this order to the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru. The learned counsel for the petitioners to also file the claim before the Arbitration Centre.
8. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Registry to return the papers, if any sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST