Karnataka High Court
M/S Prasad Technology Park Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Wind World (India) Limited on 29 July, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.260/2015
BETWEEN:
1. M/S PRASAD TECHNOLOGY PARK PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN
COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT # 2/10, 3RD FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD,
POOJARI LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE-94
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. S.PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2. M/S PRASAD GLOBAL SOLUTIONS A PARTNERSHIP
FIRM , DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1982, AND HAVING ITS
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
#2/10, 3RD FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, POOJARI LAYOUT,
RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE-94, REP. BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. S.PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
3. M/S ABHILASH GARMENTS AND ESTATES PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT # 2/10, 3RD FLOOR,
80 FEET ROAD, POOJARI LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE,
BANGALORE-94, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. S.PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
4. M/S ABHILASH SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE, A PARTNERSHIP
FIRM DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, AND HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT @ # 2/10, 3RD FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD,
POOJARI LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE-94
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. S.PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2
5. M/S PRASAD WIND MILLS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN
COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT # 2/10, 3RD FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD,
POOJARI LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE-94
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. S.PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
6. SRI. A.B. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O LATE A.M. BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RA/T 396, 12TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION,
SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-80
REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI. S. PRASAD
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRIDHAR S V, ADV. FOR M/S. GIRIDHAR & CO.)
AND:
M/S WIND WORLD (INDIA) LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN
COMPANIES ACT, AND HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT GOLDEN MILLENNIUM GROUND FLOOR,
#69/1, MILLERS ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE-25
... RESPONDENT
( RESPONDENT IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING THIS
COURT TO DIRECT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE ARBITRATOR
IN TERMS OF AGREEMENTS AT ANNEXURES-A TO Y AND Z1
TO Z27 REFERRED TO SUPRA TO ENTER UPON REFERENCE
AND TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN ALL THE
PETITIONERS ON THE ONE HAND AND THE RESPONDENT ON
THE OTHER IN TERMS OF THE NOTICE/DEMAND
DATED:15/06/2015 AS AT ANNEXURE Z-28.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMANARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in terms of agreements which are produced at Annexures-A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, T, V, W, X, Y, Z1 to Z27 and to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents. The respondent though served has not chosen to appear and oppose this petition.
2. The petitioners and the respondent had entered into certain transactions relating to supply, installation and working of the wind mills wherein different agreements were entered into. In all the agreements an arbitration clause is provided in the event of there being dispute between the parties for the resolution of the same. The petitioners contending that the respondents have committed a breach of the terms agreed therein which has given rise to the claim of amount from the respondents, had got issued a legal notice dated 4 15.06.2015 seeking payment of the claim made therein and it has been intimated to the respondents that if the claim is not settled or if the respondent does not respond to the same, the petitioners would invoke the arbitration clause and seek appointment of the sole arbitrator. The said notice was not responded to by the respondent and as such the petitioner is before this Court seeking appointment of the Arbitrator.
3. Though in the petition the different agreements have been referred to, for the limited purpose of noticing as to whether the arbitration clause is contained the purchase order at Annexure-A wherein the terms of conditions are delineated is noticed. Clause 9 of the said purchase order reads as hereunder:
"If any difference, dispute or question shall arise between the parties as to the interpretation, meaning or effect of this agreement or as to the rights or liabilities of the parties arising hereunder or as to any other matter or things relating to this agreement or arising out of or in 5 connection herewith or the same shall be referred to the arbitration of the two arbitrators, one each to be nominated by the seller and the purchaser and such reference shall be deemed to be a reference to arbitration under the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or any statutory Modification re-enactment thereof for the time being in force and the decision of the arbitrators and/or of the Umpire shall be final."
4. A perusal of the same would disclose that in the event of dispute or difference arising between the parties the matter is to be settled by arbitration. The fact that the correspondences have been exchanged between the parties, which are produced along with the petition and the fact that the petitioners have raised certain disputes through the notice dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure-Z28), would disclose that the disputes have arisen between the parties. Though the petitioners had invoked arbitration clause, the respondent has not taken any steps to have the matter resolved through arbitration. 6
5. In that view, the prayer as made in the instant petition is accepted. The Arbitrator is required to be appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties with regard to the claim made by the petitioners against the respondent as a composite claim arising under all the purchase orders referred to in the petition.
6. Accordingly, Sri Justice B.Padmaraj, No.1288, 13th Main, Judicial Layout, GKVK Post, Bengaluru- 560 065, former Judge of this Court is appointed to act as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
7. A copy of this order be dispatched to the Arbitration Centre, Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru for further process. Learned counsel for the petitioners may also approach the Arbitration Centre and file the relevant papers. The learned Arbitrator shall thereupon enter 7 reference and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms