Allowed

R Gandhi v. M/S Elegant Properties

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2021CMP/11/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. The court, noting a valid arbitration clause in the joint development agreement and rectification deed, allowed the petition and appointed a former judge as the sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Justice N.Kumar (Former Judge, Karnataka High Court) as sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

R Gandhi Vs M/S Elegant Properties — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.11/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R.Gandhi, S/o late R.Chinnapa Chetty, Aged 73 years.

¶9

Kamala Gandhi, W/o Mr.R.Gandhi, Aged 66 years.

¶10

Vinod Gandhi, S/o Mr.R.Gandhi, Aged 44 years.

¶11

Shilpa Gandhi, D/o Mr.R.Gandhi, Aged 41 years.

¶12

Santosh Gandhi, S/o Mr.R.Gandhi, Aged 35 years.

¶13

All residing at No.7, Railway Station Road, Ranipet-623401.

¶14

Vellore District, Tamil Nadu.

¶15

(By Sri.Mallikarjun, Advocate for Sri.Sampath.A, Advocate)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

M/s Elegant Properties, Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partner, Mr.B.Rajashekar, No.1, Elegant Desire, Coles Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore – 560005. 2. Mr.B.Rajashekar, Partner, M/s.Elegant Properties, No.1, Elegant Desire, Coles Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore-560005. 3. Mrs.R.Vijaya Chamundi, Partner, M/s.Elegant Properties, No.1, Elegant Desire, Coles Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore-560005. …Respondents (R1 to R3 are served)

¶19

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to appoint sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents as per Joint Development Agreement dated 12.12.2013 and Rectification Deed dated 01.02.2019 in the interest of justice and equity.

¶20

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are stated to be the owners of the property and had entered into a Joint

¶24

Development Agreement with the developers who are arrayed as respondents.

¶25

It is submitted that in light of the differences of opinion regarding the time for completion and as regards other terms Rectification Deed came to be entered in to between the parties on 01.02.2019 rectifying the Joint Development Agreement dated 12.12.2013 providing for fresh date for completion of work. It is pointed out that the Rectification Deed has a clause for arbitration for settlement of disputes and in light of the differences that have arisen with respect to the Joint Development Agreement even after certain terms were modified in terms of the Rectification Deed

¶26

¶27

petitioner has sought for reference of the matter for arbitration to resolve the dispute in terms of Claue9(c) of the Rectification Deed.

¶28

It is further pointed out that even as

¶29

regards the Joint Development Agreement Clause-31 provides for resolution of disputes by way of arbitration.

¶30

The petitioners submit that legal notice has been issued invoking the arbitration clause as per the notice at Annexure-C proposing the name of an arbitrator and the legal notice has been served on the respondents as per the acknowledgment enclosed at page No.80.

¶31

Petitioners submit that in light of the absence of concurrence in appointment of arbitrator, present petition has been filed.

¶32

¶33

6. Upon notice, respondents though served

¶34

have remained unrepresented.

¶35

It is clear that the petitioners and the respondents had entered in to a Joint Development Agreement and also Rectification Deed dated 01.02.2019 whereby terms of the Joint Development Agreement were modified. The Joint Development Agreement contains the Clause for arbitration Clause31 while the Rectification Deed also contains the Clause for dispute resolution by way of arbitration as per Claue-9(c).

¶36

The petitioners submit that all efforts for negotiating has failed despite detailed correspondence including exchange of legal notices between the parties and finally petitioners have got issued legal notice by invoking the arbitration clause while proposing the name of the arbitrator and the same is

¶37

¶38

found in the legal notice at Annexure-C. The disputes are detailed in the legal notice. In the present proceedings no objections have been filed to controvert the assertion of the petitioners, in fact the petitioners have filed the memo and enclosed copy of

¶39

the reply notice stated to have been sent by the respondents in which they have specifically asserted that the disputes relating to the Joint Development Agreement dated 12.12.2013 and the Rectification Deed dated 01.02.2019 would be referred for arbitration.

¶40

Taking note of the agreement between the

¶41

parties, the clause for arbitration as found in Joint Development Agreement as well as Clause-9(c) in the Rectification Deed, noticing that demand for reference for arbitration by way of a legal notice at Annexure-C has been served on the respondents and also taking note of the reply made out by the respondents to the

¶42

¶43

legal notice by way of reply dated 28.12.2020, case is made out for allowing the petition.

¶44

Accordingly, this petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is allowed. Shri.Justice N.Kumar, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, ‘Gruha’ Apartment No.101, Skyline Golden Ray Apartment, K.P.Poornachandra Tejasvi Road, Kempegowda Nagar, Gavipuram, Bengaluru-560019 is directed to act as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as per the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International) at Bengaluru.

¶45

All claims and contentions of the parties are left/kept open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶46

A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic &

¶47

¶48

International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for

¶49

proceeding further in the matter.

¶50

Registry is directed to return all original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

NS

R Gandhi v. M/S Elegant Properties

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Gandhi v. M/S Elegant Properties

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Dhananjaya.D Vs Smt.Shruthi

Mahesh. M. C. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Pramod Kumar N Vs Mrs Ananya M v

M/S Sreedevi Infra Constructions Private Limited Vs M/S Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited

M/S Slv Estates Vs S K Janardhan Rao Salghur

M/S. Infinitum Hospitality Vs Mr. P. Venkatesan