IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.18 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
M/S. ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES’ ACT, 1956, AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1054, 7TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI MANU ITTINA S/O. LATE I. MAHABALESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI BHASKAR DESAI, ADV. FOR SRI V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
M/S. LALITHA DEVELOPERS A PERTNERSHIP BUSINESS FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, NO.44/45 RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS BANGALORE-560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI RANJIT KUMAR KEDIA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI FREUD RICHARDSON, ADV. FOR SRI UDITA RAMESH, ADV.) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO ORDER APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE DISPUTE. THE PETITIONER ALSO SUBMITS THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REFERRED TO THE ARBITRATION CENTRE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE DISPUTE BY THE ARBITRATION. COST OF THE PETITION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE RESPONDENT.
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Bhaskar Desai, learned counsel for Sri V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner. Sri Freud Richardson, learned counsel for Sri Udita Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), the petitioner inter alia seeks for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the parties had entered into a Joint Development and Construction Agreement on 10.12.2003 and thereafter, Agreement to Sell and Supplementary Deed was executed between the parties on 23.04.2004 and 22.11.2004 respectively. Admittedly, as per Claus-13 of the Agreement to Sell dated 23.04.2004, the dispute between the parties is required to be referred to the arbitration as per the provision of the Act.
5. In that regard, the petitioner had sent a legal notice dated 23.10.2016 to the respondent to appoint a Sole Arbitrator. However, the respondent failed to act upon the notice which was sent by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the dispute may be referred to the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of dispute between the parties.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri, former Judge of this Court is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri, former Judge of this Court.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE ST