Allowed

M/S Marquis Associates v. Smt Asha Sethi

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2021CMP/179/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator. The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and appointed Sri. Vishwanath V. Angadi as the Sole Arbitrator to decide disputes between the petitioner and respondents. All claims were left open for the tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Appointed Sri. Vishwanath V. Angadi as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.

M/S Marquis Associates Vs Smt Asha Sethi — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.179/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/s. Marquis Associates, A Partnership Firm, Having its office at No.2343, 17th Cross Road, HSR Layout, Sector - I, Bengaluru - 560 012, Represented by its Partner Sri Nikesh Porwal. ... Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri. H.R. Anantha Krishna Murthy, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Smt. Asha Sethi, D/o Sri Vishwanath Arora, Aged about 72 years.

¶12

Sri Nitin Sethi, S/o Sri J.K. Sethi, Aged about 44 years.

¶13

Both R/at # 1-65, Diamond District Apartments, HAL Airport Road, Kodihalli, Bengaluru - 560 008. ...Respondents

¶14

(R1 and R2 - Served)

¶15

¶16

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and decide the disputes and differences between the petitioner and respondents arising out and in connection with the Indenture of Lease dated 21/12/2017 and all the matters concerning the transactions between the parties.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is stated to be a lessee under the Indenture of Lease dated 21.12.2017 entered into with the lessors, who are respondents herein. A copy of the said Indenture of Lease is enclosed at Annexure-A. It is submitted that the petitioner was constrained to close down its business in light of COVID-19 pandemic and had also surrendered the possession, but the respondents were not willing to refund the security deposit and hence, the disputes have arisen.

¶20

It is further submitted that the petitioner got issued legal notice to the respondents as per Annexure-'B' detailing the dispute and also seeking for invocation of Arbitration Clause for resolution of the dispute. It is noticed

¶21

¶22

that the said notice has been received by the respondents as per the acknowledgement at Annexure-B5. As there was no response to the said legal notice, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶23

It is further submitted that though there is lock in period in the Indenture of Lease, in light of the circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner is stated to be entitled for termination of Indenture of Lease.

¶24

Upon notice, though respondents have been served, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶25

Taking note of the Indenture of Lease at Annexure-A, the acknowledgement at Annexures-B5 and B6, clearly a case is made out for invocation of Arbitration Clause and allow the petition by appointing the Arbitrator.

¶26

Accordingly, this petition is allowed by appointing Sri. Vishwanath V. Angadi, Retired District Judge, No.1240,

¶27

¶28

14^th Main Road, Judicial Layout, Jakkur, Bengaluru - 560065

¶29

to enter into the said reference of Arbitration and act as the Sole Arbitrator in the present case in the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

¶30

(i) All claims and contentions are left/kept open

¶31

to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶32

(ii) A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre

¶33

(Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter.

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

VGR

¶37

ct:mhp

M/S Marquis Associates v. Smt Asha Sethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Marquis Associates v. Smt Asha Sethi

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 S T Papareddy Vs M/S Sands Infratech Developers India Private Limited

M/S. Spookfish Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Hitech Systems and Services Limited

Sri N S Prakash @ Prakash Nama Vs M/S. White Oak Realty Partners

Sharavani Batni Vs Pavan Jahagirdar

Sri B Shashikumar Vs M/S Vsan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Sln Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India