IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.330 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SV EduSports Private Limited Registered office at No.111, Brigade Manae Court Koramangala Industrial Layout Bengaluru – 560 034 Represented by its Finance Assistant Mr.Srikanth H R [present address] ... Petitioner (By Ms.Gauthami S.Bhandary for Sri.B.K.Prashanth, Advocates) AND:
Saraswat Central Public School Ajani, Soaner Nagpur Represented by Mrs.Shimla Singh ... Respondent (By Sri.Rohit Gowda, Advocate) This CMP is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to (a) constitute an Arbitral Tribunal by appointing suitable person as the Sole Arbitrator for the resolution of the differences, claims that have arisen between the parties in connection with the said agreement dated 31.08.2016 (Annexure-A) herein and etc.
This CMP coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parties in terms of Clause 9 of the Agreement dated 31.08.2016.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is one of the India’s leading Integrated School Sports/Physical Education Company managing the School Sports and Physical Education services for the past several years. The respondent approached the petitioner for availing the services provided by the petitioner and entered into an agreement dated 31.08.2016. The petitioner has provided the services to the respondent as per the aforesaid agreement and raised invoices on different dates. The respondent after availing the services from the petitioner has not paid the amount for the services rendered by the petitioner and failed to make the payment inspite of repeated remainders. Therefore, petitioner has no other alternative except to issue legal notice dated 14.08.2018 to the respondent demanding for payment. The respondent has not replied nor paid the amount. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for. The respondent has not filed objections.
3. Ms.Gauthami S.Bhandary, learned counsel for petitioner contended that it is undisputed fact that the petitioner and respondent entered into an agreement dated 31.08.2016. Inspite of legal notice as contemplated under Section 7(5) of the Act was issued, respondent has not replied nor filed any objections before this Court. Therefore, she sought to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, Sri.Rohit Gowda, learned counsel for respondent opposed the prayer sought and contended that the respondent has not violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, sought to dismiss the petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner and respondent entered into an agreement dated 31.08.2016. Accordingly, petitioner provided services to the respondent and raised invoices on different dates. The respondent after availing services has not paid the amount. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has issued legal notice as contemplated under Section 7(5) of the Act. Admittedly, the respondent has not replied to the said notice. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has not filed objections to the averments made in this petition. Arbitration Clause 9 of the agreement entered into between the parties reads as under:-
“Clause 9 – Arbitration:
Any claim, dispute or difference between the Parties shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be jointly appointed by the Parties. All proceedings in any such arbitration shall be conducted in English. The Arbitration shall take place in Bangalore, India and shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or other law relating to arbitration in force in India from time to time. The arbitration award shall be final and binding upon the parties to this Agreement. Cost of the Arbitration to be borne equally by both the parties, in the absence of any order as to costs in the Arbitration Award. In case the parties are unable to determine a sole arbitrator, the matter will be referred to a panel of three arbitrators wherein both Parties will appoint one arbitrator each who in turn will appoint the third arbitrator to preside over the proceedings.”
6. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, there is no impediment to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
7. In view of the above, Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Sri.Vishwanath V.Angadi, Former District Judge is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in terms of Clause 9 of the Agreement dated 31.08.2016 entered into between the parties in accordance with law.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to Sri.Vishwanath V.Angadi, Former District Judge and Arbitration Centre for reference.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*