IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.143 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
PEARSON INDIA EDUCATION SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY MANIPAL K-12 EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.10, 3RD MAIN, ASHWINI LYAOUT, EJIPURA, BANGALORE - 560 047.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. JAIRAM BALAKRISHNAN.
(BY SRI B.N.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
… PETITIONER SHRUTHI SAGARA VIDHYA SAMSTHE (ALSO KNOWN AS) SHRUTHI SAGARA EDUCATION SOCIETY, A SOCIETY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE LAWS OF INDIA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 33, 8TH MAIN, SARASWTHIPURAM, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 086.
AND REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MRS. SUNANDAMMA.V … RESPONDENT (BY SRI NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF THE ARBITRATIN AGREEMENT CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 22ND MARCH, 2011 TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT.
THIS CMP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Sri B.N.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
2. On 22.03.2019, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the matter is likely to be settled between the parties. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the matter was adjourned for a period of three weeks and it was also made clear that no adjournment on any ground including the absence of arguing counsel on either side shall be granted and in case the matter is not argued on the next date of hearing, appropriate order shall be passed.
3. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
4. Perused the records. The petition is admitted for hearing and the same is heard finally.
5. By means of 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 resolve the dispute between the parties.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the record, it is evident that the parties had entered into an agreement on 22.03.2011. Clause No.17 of the aforesaid agreement contains an arbitration clause. Admittedly, the dispute has arisen between the parties in relation to the aforesaid agreement. In that regard, the petitioner had sent a notice to the respondent on 02.09.2015 invoking the arbitration clause. However, requisite action was not taken by the respondent in terms of the arbitration clause. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
7. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Taking into account that the parties had entered into an agreement, which contains an arbitration clause, the dispute has arisen between the parties. Hence, keeping in mind the mandate contained in Section 11(6-A) of the Act, I deem it appropriate to appoint Sri Ashok B. Hinchigeri, the former Judge of this Court as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
8. A copy of this order be dispatched to the Arbitration Centre, Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for necessary action in that regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner to also approach the Arbitration Centre with the relevant papers to be filed therein. The learned Arbitrator appointed herein shall thereupon enter reference and proceed with the matter in accordance with law and the Rules governing the Arbitration Centre.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PB