Allowed

M/S Sharada Vidyaniketan v. Thubarahalli Founhdation Trust

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2021CMP/180/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 180/2021 arising under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute over fee sharing with the respondent trust. The court, finding a prima facie dispute and willingness to arbitrate, appointed Sri. N.S. Dafedar as sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. N.S. Dafedar as Sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the parties.

M/S Sharada Vidyaniketan Vs Thubarahalli Founhdation Trust — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 180/2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

M/S. SHARADA VIDYANIKETAN A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES ACT HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO. 102, KRISHNA PRASAD APARTMENT DATTATREYA TEMPLE ROAD MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶8

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR Y. N. SHARMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE H. A. SHARMA.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR. N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THUBARAHALLI FOUNDATION TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT AND HAVING OFFICE AT NO.3 AND 4

¶13

¶14

GIDDENS LAYOUT, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU - 560 066.

¶15

PRESENTLY AT NO.42, 'SUDHA MANSION' 1^ST CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, BANAGIRI HILLS BSK III STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE MR. L R SHIVARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA.

¶17

... RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 READ WITH THE CLAUSE 2 OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME, 1996 PRAYING FOR APPOINTMENT OF A SOLE ARBITRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE-17 OF ANNEXURE-B (FEE SHARING MEMORANDUM) DATED 06.03.2017 AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The respondent is served, and is represented by Sri. H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned counsel who has entered appearance on 18.06.2021.

¶24

The petitioner, one of the parties to the registered Memorandum of Fee Sharing dated 06.03.2021 [Memorandum dated 06.03.2021], has filed this petition for appointment of a sole Arbitrator invoking Arbitration clause, which reads as under:

¶25

"17. ARBITRATION: In case of any dispute between the parties, the same shall be referred to ARBITRATION by a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966. The place of arbitration shall be Bangalore and the language shall be English. The jurisdiction of the City Civil Courts Bangalore shall have jurisdiction."

¶26

The petitioner's case is that the respondent, in terms of the aforesaid Memorandum dated

¶27

¶28

06.03.2021, is obliged to share collected fee at a particular ratio and with the due escalation. The respondent, who was liable to pay a sum of Rs.55,80,000/(Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only) as on 31.07.2020 towards fee with further amounts towards loss of infrastructure material and unauthorized demolition of the structures, has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Only). But this cheque is returned without payment on presentation with the endorsement that the 'payment has been stopped by drawer'. The respondent is in default and also in breach of the terms of the Memorandum dated 06.03.2021. The petitioner has issued legal notice suggesting appointment of a sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute.

¶29

Sri. H. Shanthi Bhushan, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent's case is that no amount is due as all the

¶30

¶31

amounts are paid in performance of the Memorandum dated 06.03.2021, and though the respondent has not issued any reply to the legal notice dated 29.08.2020, the respondent is willing, without admitting any liability, for a resolution of the dispute by arbitration and a sole Arbitrator could be appointed.

¶32

5. This Court is prima facie satisfied that there

¶33

is a dispute between the parties and they have agreed to resolve such by arbitration, and also because presently there is unanimity as regards the appointment of a sole Arbitrator, the petition is allowed in terms of the following;

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Sri. N.S.Dafedar, Retired District Judge, No.207, 'B' wing, Pallava Terrace, Near Yedur lake, Jayanagar 6^th Block, Bengaluru. Mob:9448695009/9481773009, is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to enter reference of

¶36

¶37

the dispute between the petitioner and respondent and conduct proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

¶38

The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and Sri. N.S.Dafedar, Retired District Judge, as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996.

¶39

All the contentions between the parties on the merits of the dispute are left open for consideration by the sole Arbitrator.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

M/S Sharada Vidyaniketan v. Thubarahalli Founhdation Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sharada Vidyaniketan v. Thubarahalli Founhdation Trust

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

Domappa Vs the Assistnat Commissioner

Sri Nagaraju P Vs the Karnataka Government

Smt. Kamala C Vs the State of Karnataka

K L Srihari Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S R. K. Infra (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Secretary

Smt. Shanthamma Vs State of Karnataka