IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.146 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. A.C. SUBRAMANYA REDDY S/O LATE CHANNARAYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. No.5/1, 1ST MAIN 1ST CROSS, CHAMUNDESWARI LAYOUT DODDA BOMMASANDRA BENGALURU-560 097.
(By Mr. SANDESH C.R. ADV.) AND:
SRI. SHYAM SUNKARA MAJOR No.101, 1ST ‘H’ MAIN ROAD 4TH ‘F’ CROSS, KASTURI NAGAR EAST OF NGEF, BENGALURU-560043.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT (By Mr. RAVINDRANATH K, ADV., FOR C/RESPONDENT) - - -
This CMP is filed under Section 11(5) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint an impartial arbitrator to adjudicate the arbitral dispute between the petitioner and the respondent vide Annexure-A & etc.
This CMP coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. By means of this petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner and the respondent have entered into a construction agreement on 01.03.2017. However, it appears that subsequently the dispute between the parties arose. Clause 13 of the agreement contains an arbitration clause which reads as under:
“In case of any dispute, the parties agree to resolve the same by mutual discussion. If the dispute is not resolved after such discussion, the parties agree to refer the matter to the sole arbitrator who is mutually agreed.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner sent a notice dated 30.01.2018 seeking consent of the respondent for appointment of an arbitrator. However, the respondent did not respond to the aforesaid notice and therefore, this petition has been filed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the dispute which is sought to be raised by the petitioner does not fall within the scope and ambit of the arbitration clause.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Under Section 7 of the Act, the Court, while dealing with the petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, is required to consider whether or not an agreement exists between the parties and whether the same contains an arbitration clause and whether or not the said issue is in existence which is required to be referred to the Arbitrator. The issue whether or not disputed, sought to be raised by the petitioner, falls within the purview of the arbitration clause, is a matter to be dealt with by the arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act. Needless to state that the respondent shall be at liberty to raise such an objection.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that they have no objection to the appointment of Sri.Veeranna G.Tigadi, retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
8. Accordingly, Sri.Veeranna G.Tigadi, retired District Judge is appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to Mr. Sri.Veeranna G.Tigadi, retired District Judge.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV