IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.308/2018 BETWEEN VIJAY NIRMAN COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED #105, 7TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, 2ND STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 094, KARNATAKA, INDIA. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI GOUTHAM K.V., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RASHMI MENON, ADVOCATE.) AND NITESH HOUSING DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED LEVEL 7, NITESH TIMESQUARE NO.8, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001, KARNATAKA, INDIA. ... RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO (I) APPOINT THE RESPONDENT'S NOMINEE ARBITRATOR AND THE PRESIDING ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF INTER ALIA, THE OUTSTANDING CLAIMS, ARBITRARY TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT DATED: 05.04.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT (DATED: 12.07.2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-B) AND FRAUDULENT INVOCATION BANK GUARANTEES;
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE (II) APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR, TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF INTER ALIA, THE OUTSTANDING CLAIMS, ARBITRARY TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT AND SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FRAUDULENT INVOCATION OF THE BANK GUARANTEES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY;
(III) GRANT COSTS OF THIS PETITION TO THE PETITIONER, AND (IV) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF’S AS THE HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON FOR “ADMISSION” THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Sri. Goutham K.V., learned counsel for Smt. Rashmi Menon, learned counsel for petitioner.
None appeared for respondent though served.
2. By means of this petition under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. None appeared on behalf of the respondent even though it has been served with the notice of the proceedings.
4. From perusal of the record it is evident that the parties had entered into agreement on 05.04.2013. The agreement contains an arbitration clause namely clause No.53 for adjudication of the disputes through arbitration. The petitioner sent a notice on 21.08.2018 invoking the arbitration clause. However, the aforesaid notice failed to evoke any response from the respondent. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner has approached this court.
5. After having perused the agreement and taking into account the arbitration clause namely clause No.53 in the agreement as well as the mandate contained in Section 11 (6a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, I deem it appropriate to appoint Mr. Justice Subhash B. Adi, a former judge of this court as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
6. In view of preceding analysis the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Act succeeds and is hereby allowed. In view of the aforesaid submissions and as prayed by learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Justice Subhash B. Adi, is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
7. 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, the petition is disposed of.
Chs* CT:HR Sd/- JUDGE