IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.365 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
M/S. HARMONY DEVELOPERS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.30, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT KALYANAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 043. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS 1. SRI. G. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY S/O. G. GOVINDA REDDY 2. MRS. GOLDA PONRAJ D/O. K. JAGADISH PONRAJ 3. FRANCIS SELVARAJ S/O. C.P. SELVARAJ. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.J. JAGADEESH, ADV. FOR SRI PAPI REDDY G., ADV.) AND:
SRI C.S. JAYARAMAIAH S/O. LATE SRI SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDENT OF SEEMASANDRA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI N.S. BHAT, ADV.) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) AND 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SUITABLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A FOR DECIDING THE DISPUTE BETWEEN IT AND THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, ON THE GROUNDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri K.J. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for Sri Papi Reddy G., learned counsel for petitioners. Sri N.S. Bhat, learned counsel for respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing and the same is heard finally.
3. By means of this petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’, for short), the petitioners inter alia seek appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners in relation to the grievance arising out of the agreement dated 22.08.2012 have already filed a civil suit seeking for the relief of specific performance of the contract namely, O.S.No.1760/2017.
6. It is trite law that the petitioners cannot be permitted to avail two remedies simultaneously. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them under law. Needless to state, in case it is found that the petitioners have not filed the civil suit, as stated by the learned counsel for respondent, the petitioners shall be at liberty to revive this petition.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST