Allowed

Sri Mohammed Daanish Zackria v. M/S Paddy'S Properties LLP

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2021CMP/122/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an arbitrator. The court held that the legal notice was sufficient under Section 3 of the Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, despite the notice being returned unclaimed, and appointed a retired judge as the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointed Shri. Vishwanath V. Angadi as the Arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Sri Mohammed Daanish Zackria Vs M/S Paddy'S Properties LLP — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.122/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri Mohammed Daanish Zackria S/o Aslam Zackria Sait Aged about 33 years Residing at : Martello Boulevard Third Floor, No.6/4, Museum Road Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶9

Represented by his Power of Attorney Holder Mrs.Habiba Zackria W/o Aslam Zackria Sait Aged about 58 years Residing at : Martello Boulevard Third Floor, No.6/4, Museum Road Bengaluru – 560 001

¶10

M/s Rocklines Farms & Resorts (P) Ltd A company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Administrative office At “ Rocklines House”, No.9/2, Museum road Bengaluru – 560 001 Rep. by its Director Mr.Mohammed Daanish Zackria

¶11

Represented by his Power of Attorney Holder

¶12

¶13

Mrs.Habiba Zackria W/o Aslam Zackria Sait Aged about 58 years Residing at : Martello Boulevard Third Floor, No.6/4, Museum Road Bengaluru – 560 001 ... Petitioners (By Sri.Janardhana.G, Advocate)

¶14

AND:

¶15

M/s Paddy’s Properties LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Incorporated under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, having Its Registered office at: No.2-B, 2^nd Floor, Samruddhi Royale 2 High Street, Cooke Town Bengaluru – 560 005 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Paddy Menon …Respondent (Respondent – Service is held sufficient v/o dated 18.01.2021)

¶16

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to A) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between them, in terms of clause 24 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 09.02.2016 under Annexure-A and etc.,

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners who are stated to be owners of the property in Sy.No.151 situated at N.Begur, Heggadadevanakote Taluk, Mysore has sought for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute in terms of clause 24 of the Joint Development Agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondent. It is submitted that though the Joint Development Agreement was entered into on 09.02.2016, the respondent has not started any development work. Attention is drawn to the arbitration clause at clause No.24 of the Joint Development Agreement at Annexure-A. It is further submitted that the petitioners got issued a legal notice invoking the arbitration clause on 12.06.2020 and the said notice was returned with a postal shara ‘not claimed’ and on the second occasion postal shara reads ‘party out of station unclaimed’. The petitioner

¶21

¶22

submits that his obligation is only as regards sending of the notice to the correct address as available. It is submitted that the notice was sent to the same address as found in the Joint Development Agreement.

¶23

It is noticed that though notice was issued by this Court the respondent has not been served and finally notice by way of substituted service was ordered and notice has been held sufficient. Taking note of the Joint Development Agreement and the dispute as made out in the legal notice at page No.49 which details the dispute and noticing that the postal cover has been returned with the shara ‘unclaimed’ and also noticing that respondent in the present proceeding has failed to put in appearance and controvert the averments in the petition, a case is made out for allowing the petition. It is to be noticed that legal notice issued by the petitioner at Annexure-

¶24

¶25

D has been returned with the postal shara ‘unclaimed’ as per Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), there is a presumption that returned communication is deemed to have been received if it is delivered to the addressee personally or at the place of business or to the mailing address. It is noticed that the communication in the form of legal notice has been sent to the address as mentioned in the Joint Development Agreement and in light of Section 3 of the Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act notice must be held to be sufficient.

¶26

Accordingly, this petition under Section 11(5) of the Act, 1996 is allowed. Shri.Vishwanath V. Angadi, Retired District Judge, No.1240, 14^th Main Road, Judicial Layout, Jakkur, Bengaluru-560065 is directed to act as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties under the provisions of the

¶27

¶28

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as per the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International) at Bengaluru.

¶29

All claims and contentions of any of the parties

¶30

are left/kept open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶31

A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter.

¶32

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

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

ssb

Sri Mohammed Daanish Zackria v. M/S Paddy'S Properties LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Daanish Zackria v. M/S Paddy'S Properties LLP

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

P Manikandan Vs M/S Vaigai Thread Processors Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Malasani Linga Setty Sarala Vs the Income Tax Officer

Smt Malasani Veerannasetty Radhalaxmi Vs the Income Tax Officer

Mr M H Sachin Vs Mr S M Sunil

M/S. Mysore Sales International Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

M/S S K Construction Vs the General Manager