IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.219 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
Intex Developers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Representative Sri. Varun Juneja, Registered Office at D-18/2, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi – 110 020.
(By Sri. G. T. Kumar, Advocate and Sri. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate) AND:
1. K.V. Madhe Gowda, S/o Patil Venkatesh Gowda K.M., Aged about 51 years, R/at Sri. Venkateswara Nilaya, Maruthi Nagar Main Road, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District – 561 203.
2. P.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o Narayan Reddy, Aged about 41 years, R/at No.103, 11th Cross, Lakshmaiah Block, Ganganagar, Bengaluru – 560 032.
… Petitioner 3. T. Krishnappa Naidu, S/o Reddeappa Naidu, Aged about 40 years, R/o Madanapalli, Andhra Pradesh.
… Respondents (By Sri. R. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for R1;
Sri. Jayaprakash Shetty, Advocate for R2 (absent);
Service of notice on R3 is dispensed with vide order dated 21.12.2018) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to (1) appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes or differences arose between the parties to present proceedings in pursuance of MOU’s of 2011 and 10.01.2013 vide Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ (2) Direct the respondents to pay all the cost of the proceedings; (3) Pass any such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the given circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
This Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. G. T. Kumar, learned counsel and Sri. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. R. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri. Jayaprakash Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – absent.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), petitioner seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and differences, which have arisen between the parties.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this civil miscellaneous petition briefly stated are that petitioner and respondents have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as ‘MOU’ for short) for procuring the lands to an extent of 200 acres in the various village of Anekal Taluk for developing residential layouts in Bengaluru. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondents have entered into an agreement of sale on 14.12.2011 and 12.01.2012 without delivering possession in respect of the lands to an extent of 5 acres. Thereafter, on 10.01.2013, the petitioner and respondents entered into MOU for procuring of land to an extent of 54 Acres at the rate of `75,00,000/- per acre in the same villages of Anekal Taluk.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents did not comply with certain clauses of memorandum of understanding and thereafter, a legal notice was issued to them to comply with the clauses of the MOU arrived at between the parties. However, the respondents refused to comply with the same. In the factual background, petitioner has approached this Court as stated supra.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to clause 15 of the MOU dated 10.01.2013 submitted that the aforesaid agreement contains an arbitration clause and the dispute between the parties be referred to the Arbitrator who may be appointed by this Court.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that dispute under the aforesaid clause can be referred to an Arbitrator only in case of doubt or difference with regard to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the same does not constitute an arbitration clause.
7. I have considered the submissions made on both sides.
8. Clause 15 of the MOU dated 10.01.2013 and clause 17 of the MOU of the year 2011 read as under:
“Clause 15 of the MOU dated 10.01.2013:
Save and except other wise hereinbefore expressed, in the event of any doubt, difference or dispute arising in the interpretation hereof or in any manner connected herewith or in relation hereto such doubt, difference or dispute shall be referred to and decided by arbitration in terms of Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 or any amendment or re-enactment thereof of the time being in force.”
“Clause 17 of the MOU of the year 2011: Save and except otherwise hereinbefore expressed, in the event of any doubt, difference or dispute arising in the interpretation hereof or in any manner connected herewith or in relation hereto such doubt, difference or dispute shall be referred to and decided by arbitration in terms of Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 or any amendment or re-enactment thereof of the time being in force.”
9. From perusal of the aforesaid clauses, it is evident that if the aforesaid clauses are read in its entirety, any doubt, differences or dispute arisen out in the interpretation thereof or in any manner connected therewith or in relation thereto, such doubt or difference shall be referred to be decided by the arbitration in terms of the Act. The aforesaid clauses are inclusive and are widely worded. Therefore, the interpretation as put forth by the learned counsel the respondents cannot be acceded to. Needless to state that, the scope of the dispute referred before the arbitrator is confined only to Clauses 17 and 15 of the MOU of the year 2011 and MOU dated 10.01.2013.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, clauses 11(6) of the Act, is allowed. Mr. M. Nagarajan, member of the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby appointed as the Arbitrator to arbitrate or adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
11. Registry is directed to transmit the copy of this order to Mr. M. Nagarajan, member of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-