Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Vijayashankar Constructions Pvt ... vs M/S Trishul Developers on 18 July, 2008

Author: Ajit J Gunjal

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18"" DAY OF JULY 2008

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJAi;:   V   '

C.M.P. No.14o/2007      

BETWEEN :

M] S.Vijayasha11kar Constructions L'  .  _
PrivateLte.,APrivate Ltd,»-_  - " '

Company registered under-.._  ;

Companies Act, 1956,   ;
Reflesentedbyits   V

M.S.Vijaya   .     

No.646,    

Road, Mysoxeq--- 570 334.   ~   ...PETI'1'IONER

(By S1'i.(u}.S_ ubb:aVV' m 
' 'S:1;t.H.T-.S arvama11ga1a, Advs.)

1. 'ML!  déxrélopem,
A Mittal Vcntuie,

' _ Paxfiaersifip. firm,

'Represented by its

" «M3:.Nii¢aj Mittal,

 1'{)9"B', 1 Floor,
'  Tower, # 6

-  j M.G.Road,
 . «jfiangalore-560 O01.



2. Mr.Nira_.i Mittal,
1098, 1 Floor,
Mittal Tower,
# 6, M.G.Road,
Bangalore -- 560 001.   _

3. O.P.Mitta1,
109/ B, 1 floor,
Mittal Tewer,
# 6, M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 003.. .

4. Team 2, ' _T 

Architcctand Consulting"  V

Engineer: N0-..30'2'7.   .  ' 

Emmssy      

5, Vittal Read,     

Bangalore -,560.;_.901§   ..   ...RESPONDENTS

  %
'Ml   Advs.)

 C.M.I5.  under Section 11 of the

% °~.Aj4bitrai3on_and... Conciliation Act, 1996, praying that this

Hpa:"1V'bIeJ.  "-"may be pleased to appoint an
 and suitable sole Arbitrator for

9'  adjtidzicating'  the disputes, differences, claims and
 mattefs   out of or in connection with the
 in dispute in the iatltemst of justice and
 % §:q'I1i't3%».«

E This C.M.P. coming on for admission, this day, the

h  V  _ " made the following:



ORDER

This petition is filed tmder Section 11(6) Arbitration and Concfl iation Act, 1996. L arises in the following manner:

The petitioner undertook tiieA_i13i the consmiction of certain building at Mysore. Jiavas reduced in wri1:ing,__a at Axmexure 'A'. between the regmding the quality of as time limit in which the petitiozier wos'-- we oomlfletze the said Ttie go!' i the petitioner is that they in thrown out from the project site on date on which the construction lwas is over. It appears the petitioner « ixiacle attempts to get back his maizerial as H eras in oorrespondenoe with the respondents for i i ,giaymem of the dues to him. Since nothing transpired it appears the petitioner has raised oextain claims against the respondents in the letter dated 20*-5 September' 2007, copy of which is produced at Annexure -., respondents did not respond. Hence, invoked the arbitral clause and issiied' a 'a_ of which is produced at Axmexnre replied to the said notice, the one Mr_K'S.RamasWamy, .aS an Arbitrator: The same tile petitioner on the made by an incompetent Vn. i~ienee,._ this figetitrion.

2.1"'I'1ia:ve the relevant papers. A pe1V'_u_sal' 'the at Annexure 'A' would V' e-it an arbitral clause at para. 11.2, as follows:

shall not, except wflh the consent in writing of the employer, the 'A afeitttects, in any way delay the canytng V' v of the work by reason of any such matter, question or dispute being referred to arbitration but shall proceed with the work with all due diligence and shall, until fi/ the decision of the arbitration is given, _ abide by the decision of the architect no award of the mbitrator shall relieve v_ contractor of his obligaxrbnsi V' V strictly to the architecfs regard to the actual of " " V' such award. h' 3, I have V% by the petitioners, 'B' and 'C', which that a. serious dispute as well as the respondefits "v:i)rk entrusted pursuant to V the ' to the fact that the dispute has the parties and there being an 'z~:~.rbitra1" tn resolve the dispute, I am of the View the given set of circumstances, an arbitrator is ' V' to be appointed. It is also brought to my notice ~ that the petitioner has filed a suit in A.A. No.2/2007 under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking interim fl.» -5- measure. It appears the matter has been mediation centre for amicable settlement. 4' . background, I am of the View that tliere it any impediment for appointing - Arbitrator shall proceed With' dispiite . settlement before mediation is settled before the this order aPPOintiI1g the rescinded.
(a) "
(b) 5:1: Main, um Cross, 2-ad Stage, Dollars Colony, " 096 is appointed as arbitrator it it _ the dispute inter se between the
(e)" is made clear that the arbitrator shall A it proceed to adjudicate the dispute only after the matter is disposed of by the mediation centre at Mysore. /7;

,1' -7-

(d) Regstry to send a copy of this order to Arbitrator to enter upon reference.

(e) A copy of this order shall alfsg be j mediation centre at Mysore. srs eeee