Karnataka High Court
Sabina Chopra vs M/S. Rci India Pvt. Ltd. on 7 October, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 318 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SABINA CHOPRA
W/O AADESH CHOPRA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
D-73, 3RD FLOOR
SAKET, NEW DELHI - 110 048.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH.S.NAGARALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. RCI INDIA PVT.LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES
ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PINE VALLEY, FIRST LEVEL
EMBASSY GOLF LINKS BUSINESS PARK
OFF.INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 071.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VASUDEVAN.H.N, ADVOCATE)
THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO
APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE THAT
HAVE BEEN ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
RESPONDENT HAVE AGREED TO RESOLVE DISPUTE IF ANY AS
AGREED IN CLAUSE 18 OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED:
06.03.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS CMP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioner-Smt.Sabina Chopra against the respondent-M/s. RCI India Pvt. Ltd., seeking an appointment of an Arbitrator in pursuance of Clause-18 of the Appointment Letter (Agreement) vide Annexure-A dated 06.03.2017.
2. Clause-18 of the said Agreement, which is an Arbitration clause reads as under:-
"18. In case of any dispute or difference arising out of your employment and / or non- employment, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of the Directors of the Company and the award of the arbitrator shall always be binding upon the parties".
3. It is submitted that the requisite notice of request for reference to arbitration was given by the petitioner to the respondent vide Annexure-J dated 16.07.2019. A reply to the said notice was given by the respondent vide Annexure-N dated 16.08.2019. Subsequently, the parties have somehow failed to mutually 3 agree for the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator in the present case. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this petition to appoint the Sole Arbitrator to resolve their disputes.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances coupled with the submissions made by the learned counsel from both sides, since the Arbitration clause exists in the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties and an arbitrable dispute also exists, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed under Section 11 of the Act and an independent Arbitrator deserves to be appointed.
5. Both the learned counsel have fairly agreed to the appointment of Sri.I.S.Antin, retired District Judge to act as the sole 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.
4
6. Accordingly, this petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is disposed of by appointing Sri.I.S.Antin, retired District Judge 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 in the said Arbitration Centre.
(i) All claims and contentions of any of the parties including jurisdiction, limitation, etc., are left/kept open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
(ii) A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration Centre, Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter, on administrative side and also to Sri.I.S.Antin, retired District Judge to the address available with the said Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru.
(iii) Registry is directed to return all original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.