IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE C.M.P. NO.195 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
M/S. JASMINE ESTATES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 563/1, PRERANA TOWERS, RANKA COLONY ROAD BILEKAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 075 REP. HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER MR. RAVICHANDRA … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNDAR RAMAN, ADV. FOR SRI. KASHYAP. N. NAIK, ADV.,) AND:
1 MR. B. GURUNATH REDDY S/O. B. LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT ARVIND NAGAR ANANTHPUR ANDHRA PRADESH – 515 001 2 MR. KONDURU VENUGOPAL REDDY S/O. MR. K. NARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT BOREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, PARIGI MANDAL, ANANTHPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH – 515 261 … RESPONDENTS [R1 & R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED] THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11[5] OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO [A] APPOINT MR. JUSTICE R. GURURAJAN [RETIRED HIGH COURT JUDGE] OR ANY OTHER PERSON THAT THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS THAT HAVE ARISEN OUT OF THE MOU DATED 09.03.2008 [ANNEXURE-B] AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Sundar Raman, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. At the instance of the petitioner, the proceedings before the Arbitration Centre had commenced. However, the aforesaid proceedings were terminated by the Arbitration Centre by communication dated 17.07.2014 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to file claim statement.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED vs. TUFF DRILLING PRIVATE LIMITED’ decided in Civil Appeal No.15036/2017 dated 20.09.2017 submitted that even though the party may not file statement of claim, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal does not come to an end and the Tribunal is supposed to proceed in accordance with law.
4. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be granted liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for redressal of its grievance.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to it under the law.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-