Karnataka High Court
Mineral Enterprises Limited vs Trishul Developers on 27 June, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.11/2018
BETWEEN
Mineral Enterprises Limited
Khanija Bhavan, West Wing
3rd Floor, No.49, Race Course
Road, Bangalore-560001
Represented by its Authorized
Signatory Mr.Hukum Raj Jain
Aged about 71 years. ..Petitioner
(By Sri Aditya Narayan, Advocate)
AND
1. Trishul Developers
No.109-B, First Floor
Mittal Towers, M G Road
Bangalore-560001.
Represented by its Partner
Mr.O P Mittal
Aged about 67 years.
2. O P Mittal
Aged about 67 years
s/o late Mr.Maliramji
Mittal, 94D, 9th Cross
Road, RMV Extension
Bangalore-560080.
2
3. Niraj Mittal
Aged about 43 years
S/o Mr.Maliramji Mittal
94D, 9th Cross Road
RMV Extension
Bangalore-560080. .. Respondents
(By Ms.Karishma Naghnoor for Sri Aravind Kamath, Advocates)
This CMP is filed under Section 11(4) of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to
appoint Mr.Justice S Venkataraman (Retired Judge,
High Court of Karnataka) as the sole Arbitrator in terms
of Clause 40 of the Construction Agreements (produced
as Annexures-A to F) to adjudicate the dispute that has
arisen thereunder.
This CMP coming on for admission this day, the
Court passed the following: -
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(4) of Arbitration to appoint a sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 40 of the Construction Agreements dated 22.12.2011 to adjudicate the dispute.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner entered into six agreements to sell with the owners of land in Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and respondent No.2 therein it was agreed that 2.721 percent of undivided right, title and interest in the said land would be sold to the petitioner. The petitioner 3 also executed six corresponding construction agreements with the respondents. Under the construction agreements, the respondents agreed to put up six apartments in the multi-storied commercial development proposed to be constructed on the aforesaid land and deliver the same to the petitioner within 30 months i.e. on or before 21.6.2014. Thereafter the petitioner executed six rectification deeds dated 25.7.2013 with the respondents and the land owners to amend the agreements to sell the construction agreements in order to correct measurements and cost of construction payable by the petitioner.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that in view of failure of the respondents to comply with the terms and conditions of agreements to deliver the apartments, the petitioner has issued legal notice on 13.6.2017 calling upon the respondents to complete their obligations under the agreements. However, the respondents failed to respond to the said legal notice. Thereafter, the petitioner issued an arbitration notice on 4 14.10.2017 invoking the arbitration agreement stipulated under Clause 40 of the construction agreements appointing sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Even after expiry of 30 days as contemplated under provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the respondents have not replied. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri Aditya Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the writ petition contended that there is no dispute with regard to six construction agreements entered into between the parties on 22.12.2011 and the specific Clause-40 of the said agreements with regard to Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. He also contended that the petitioner has complied with the mandatory provision of Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and 5 Conciliation Act, 1996 by issuing legal notice to the respondents. Therefore, he sought to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, Ms.Karishna Naghanoor learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the construction agreements with arbitration clause entered into between the parties.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that there exists construction agreements and the arbitration clause between the parties and the petitioner has complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Therefore, there is no impediment to appoint a sole Arbitrator to dissolve the dispute between the parties in terms of Clause-40 of the construction agreements dated 22.12.2011 entered into between the parties.
8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. Hon'ble Justice Dr. N Kumar, former Judge of this Court is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the 6 parties in terms of Clause - 40 of the Construction Agreements dated 22.12.2011 and in accordance with law.
Office is directed to send copy of this order to Hon'ble Justice Dr. N Kumar, former Judge and Arbitration Centre for reference.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm