IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA C.M.P.NO.286/2015 BETWEEN:
M/S. VERACIOUS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.302, OXFORD CHAMBERS, RUSTUMBAGH, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI K. SREENIVASULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O.K.V.SUBBA REDDY. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI DWARAKANATH H.S., ADV.) AND:
1. SRI N. VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, 2. SMT. RAJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O. SRI N. VENKATACHALAIAH, 3. SRI R.V.SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. SRI N. VENKATACHALAIAH, 4. SRI R. V. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. SRI N. VENKATACHALAIAH, 5. SRI ATMARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. SRI N. VENKATACHALAIAH, 6. SMT. BHAGYA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, D/O. SRI N. VENKATACHALAIAH, 7. SRI R.V.MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. SRI N. VENKATACHALAIAH, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 RESIDING AT RAJANAKUNTE VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 064. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.J.ANANDA, ADV. FOR R1, R3 & R5; R2, R4 & R7 ARE SERVED;
NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O. DT.27.03.2017) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS REGARDING CLAIMS UNDER THE ANNEXURE-A AND FOR SUCH OTHER ORDERS DIRECTIONS ETC THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking that a Sole Arbitrator be appointed to resolve the disputes between the parties.
2. Notice of this petition was ordered to the respondents. The respondents though served have not chosen to appear and oppose this petition. In that light, the petition is taken up for consideration.
3. A perusal of the petition papers in the background of the pleadings would indicate that the petitioner and the respondents have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.09.2012 with regard to development of the properties indicated in the schedule to the agreement. Clause-11 of the Memorandum of Understanding provides that, in the event of there being any dispute between the parties, the same is to be resolved through arbitration. The correspondence as exchanged between the parties and the legal notice that was issued at an earlier point and the same being replied by the respondents, as at Annexures-K and M respectively would disclose that certain disputes have arisen between the parties relating to the Memorandum of Understanding. The petitioner, in that view having invoked the arbitration clause had suggested the name of the Arbitrator through the notice dated 20.01.2015 as at Annexure-P to the petition. The said notice was served on the respondents as evident from the documents at Annexures-Q and R. The respondents have neither accepted the nomination of the Arbitrator as made by the petitioner nor, have they indicated the name of any other Arbitrator. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court seeking that the Arbitrator be appointed.
4. In that light, when it is seen that the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties provides for resolution of dispute through an Arbitrator and when the respondents have not accepted the Arbitrator nominated by the petitioner, it is appropriate that this Court nominate an independent Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
5. Accordingly, Prof. Dr. V. Nagaraj, Ex-Vice Chancellor, National Law University is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. The arbitration shall be held in terms of the provision contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules governing the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru.
6. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru. The petitioner to also file the necessary papers before the Arbitration Centre, whereupon the learned Arbitrator shall enter upon reference and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Registry to return the papers, if any sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE ST