IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.299 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Dr.RAHUL KRISHNA S/O SHAM KRISHNA SAHAY, RESIDING AT NO.96 BANDANTHOLA, ARA, BHOJPUR DISTRICT, STATE OF BIHAR – 802 301. ...PETITIONER (By Sri.CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. Mrs.SHOBHA C. SHETTY W/O D. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY, RESIDING AT SIDDI VINAYAKA COMPOUND, PADUA VILLAGE, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU-575016 2. Dr.CHANDRASHEKARA SHETTY S/O BANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIDDI VINAYAKA COMPOUND, PADUA VILLAGE, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU-575016 3. PRASAD C SHETTY S/O CHANDRASHEKARA SHETTY, RESIDING AT SIDDI VINAYAKA COMPOUND, PADUA VILLAGE, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU-575016 4. PRAKYATH C SHETTY S/O D.CHANDRASHEKARA SHETTY, RESIDING AT SIDDI VINAYAKA COMPOUND, PADUA VILLAGE, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU-575016 5. NEMIRAJ C SHETTY S/O Dr.D.CHANDRASHEKARA SHETTY, RESIDING AT SIDDI VINAYAKA COMPOUND, PADUA VILLAGE, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU-575016 6. SMT. SRIDEVI C SHETTY D/O Dr.D.CHANDRASHEKARA SHETTY, RESIDING AT SIDDI VINAYAKA COMPOUND, PADUA VILLAGE, KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU-575016.
...RESPONDENTS (By Sri RANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-3;
vide order dated.22.03.2019, notice to R4 & R5 held sufficient; R6 - served) The advocate for the petitioner has filed the above Civil Misc. Petition Under Sec.11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, praying this Hon'ble Court to appoint an Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents as per the Partnership Deed of the Firm Siddi Infratec Ventures, dated 04.09.2012, as per Clause 18 of the said Deed, as well as per clause 22 of the Development Agreement dated 09.03.2013, a copy of which is at Annexure- A and Annexure-B,and further pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Sri.Cyril Prasad Pais, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. By means of this petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), the petitioner seeks for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From perusal of the averments made, it is evident that the parties have entered into a Development Agreement dated 09.03.2013. Thereafter, the dispute arose between the parties. Clause 22 of the aforesaid Agreement provides for an Arbitration Clause. The petitioner sent a notice on 06.04.2017 to the third respondent seeking consent to the appointment of an Arbitrator. However, the requisite action was not taken by the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and bearing in mind, the mandate under Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and taking into account that the venue of the Arbitration is Mangaluru, I deem it appropriate to appoint Mr.Moosa Kunhi Nayarmoole, Retired District and Sessions Judge as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
6. In view of preceding analysis, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11(5) of the Act succeeds and is hereby allowed. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Moosa Kunhi Nayarmoole, Retired District and Sessions Judge is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DH