Allowed

Royal Orchid Associated Hotels Private Limited v. Summer Estates and Builders

Karnataka HC8 Mar 2021CMP/248/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.248/2020, appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes under a Franchise Agreement between the petitioner and respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. I.S.Antin, Retired District Judge, as the Sole Arbitrator in the matter.

Royal Orchid Associated Hotels Private Limited Vs Summer… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.248/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ROYAL ORCHID ASSOCIATED HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, GOLF AVENUE, KODIHALLI, OFF AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 008, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY - MR. AMIT JAISWAL. … PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI ROHAN TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUNDARA RAMAN M.V., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SUMMER ESTATES AND BUILDERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: HOUSE NO.1141, SECTOR 7, PUNCHKULA, HARYANA. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS -

¶11

¶12

MR. ISHAN SHARMA AND MRS. BINA SHARMA. … RESPONDENT

¶13

(NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 01.03.2021)

¶14

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND REFER THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO ARBITRATION UNDER THE AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2015 FOR ADJUDICATION THROUGH ARBITRATION, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶15

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has sought for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute that has arisen amongst the parties under the Franchise Agreement dated 13.11.2015.

¶18

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that in connection with the agreement between the parties vide Annexure-'A', disputes have arisen and in light of Clause 19, which provides for dispute resolution by way of arbitration

¶19

with the venue of arbitration at Bengaluru as per Clause

¶20

¶21

19.2, and in light of dispute between the parties, Annexure-'H' dated 18.02.2020 detailing the dispute came to be issued, which has been received by the respondent as is evident from the track consignment report vide Annexure-'H2'. It is also to be noted that the respondent has issued legal notice dated 06.01.2020 vide Annexure-'B', terminating the Franchise Agreement and subsequently, in light of the dispute, the legal notice was issued by the petitioner. In light of lack of concurrence regarding appointment of an Arbitrator, the present petition is filed.

¶22

It is noticed that despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶23

In light of agreement at Annexure-'A' and also the dispute resolution process as per Clause 19 with a clear stipulation that the venue of arbitration shall be at Bengaluru and also noticing the dispute as made out on perusal of the notice of the petitioner dated 06.01.2020, as also the notice of the respondent dated 18.02.2020, it is

¶24

¶25

clear that there exists a dispute that requires to be resolved by way of arbitration as per the arbitration clause.

¶26

Though in the reply to the legal notice dated

¶27

17.03.2020, the respondent has disputed the jurisdiction, further taking note of Clause 19.2 and 19.3 and noticing that the petitioner has Head Office at Bengaluru, the objection of jurisdiction as raised in the reply to the legal notice does not require any deeper consideration. Even otherwise, the present petition has not been objected by filing any statement of objections.

¶28

In light of the discussion made above, the petition is allowed. Sri. I.S.Antin, Retired District Judge, 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.

¶29

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

¶30

to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶31

¶32

(ii) 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.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Np/-

Royal Orchid Associated Hotels Private Limited v. Summer Estates and Builders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Orchid Associated Hotels Private Limited v. Summer Estates and Builders

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

Imtiaz Ahmed Cricket -Academy Vs C.B.C.I. Society for Medical Education

Smt Kavitha Vs Sri H S Harsha

Smt. S. Rashmi Vs Shri. Vinay B. J.

Ms. Maramreddy Kaavya Vs M/S. Opus Developers and Builders

Capacite Infra Projects Ltd. Vs M/S Siddha Sheka Developers LLP

Sane Sajana Reddy Vs Adarsha Palm Retreat Gulmohar Residents