IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA C.M.P. No.128/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI.R.MADHUSUDAN RAO, S/O. LATE PURUSHOTAM RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, PALM GROVE ESTATE, 4TH `A’ CROSS, 2ND BLOCK,. KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE – 43.
(BY SRI.M.R.VIJAYA KUMAR , ADV.) AND:
M/S.REGENCY ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.B-2/32, 33, 1ST MAIN, VENKATEGOWDA LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPUR, H.A. FARM POST, BANGALORE-24.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.M.L. JAI PRAKASH, S/O.SRI.JEJI GOWDA, ALSO AT NO.8, SECOND BLOCK, JANHAVI LAYOUT, 4 ‘A’ CROSS, OPP: TO A.H. ENCLAVE, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 43 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 WITH A PRAYER TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 21.1 OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 05.07.2013 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(‘the Act’ for short) seeking appointment of the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
2. The petitioner and the respondents have entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 05.07.2013. In respect of the said Agreement certain disputes have arisen between the parties. In that regard, legal notice has been issued by the petitioner raising such disputes. Since the Agreement provides for resolution of dispute by arbitration, the petitioner had called upon that the matter be referred to arbitration. Since the respondents have not responded to the demand made in the notice despite the notice being sent by the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. In the above background, a perusal of the Agreement dated 05.07.2013 would indicate that the parties have agreed upon that the disputes be referred to arbitration vide Clause 21 of the Agreement. The petitioner has issued a notice dated 29.09.2015 as at Annexure-B referring to the dispute and invoking the arbitration clause and also indicating that if the Arbitrator is not appointed, the petitioner would be constrained to move this Court under Section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, another notice dated 23.05.2016 has been issued. Despite the same, the respondents have neither responded to the petitioner’s notices nor have they appeared before this Court and opposed this petition. In that view, it is appropriate that this Court appoints an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
4. Accordingly, Sri Justice L.Sreenivasa Reddy, former Judge of this Court is appointed to act as a sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
5. 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.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms