Allowed

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

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2021CMP/253/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a sole arbitrator. Noting the respondent's consent despite prior failed negotiations, the court appointed a former High Court judge to decide the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Justice Jayant Patel as the Sole Arbitrator in the present case.

M/S. Spookfish Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Hitech Systems and… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.253/2020

¶5

Between : M/s. Spookfish Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Having registered office at No.497, 40^th Cross Road, 8^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 070 Represented by its Director, Sri Sudeep Sundaram, Aged about 37 years. … Petitioner (By Sri A. Mahesh Chowdhary, Advocate)

¶6

And : M/s. Hitech Systems and Services Limited, White House, 5th Floor, 119 Park Street, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700 016, India. Represented by its Managing Director. … Respondent (By Sri Mudit Mundkur, Advocate)

¶7

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to: (1) Appoint Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for resolution of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent as per the Arbitration Clause in Software License Agreement dated 19/06/2020, vide Annexure-A to be produced; (2) Award the cost of the petition; (3) Pass any

¶8

¶9

other appropriate order that this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent in light of Clause 16 of the agreement at Annexure-A.

¶13

It is submitted that there are certain disputes that have arisen in the course of execution of agreement between the parties. It is further pointed out that a notice was issued by the petitioner, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-C. It is submitted by the respondent that the respondent has also got issued a notice to the petitioner. As there was no concurrence as regards to the appointment of the arbitrator, present petition is filed.

¶14

Upon notice, Sri. Mudit Mundkur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits fairly that keeping open the contentions of the parties, the arbitrator could be

¶15

¶16

appointed taking note of the agreement at Annexure-A, Clause-16 which provides for dispute resolution.

¶17

Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that efforts for negotiated settlement are failed, taking note of the dispute as is made out in the notice at Annexure-C sent by the petitioner as well as the notice sent by the respondent at Annexure-D and noticing the consent of the respondent for appointment of the arbitrator, case is made out to allow the petition.

¶18

Accordingly, petition is allowed . Hon'ble Shri. Justice Jayant Patel, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Krupa, No.3, Nitibug, Judges Co-operative Society, Opp. High Court, S.G. Road, Ahmedabad – 61, 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.

¶19

¶20

(i) All claims and contentions are left/kept open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

Sd/JUDGE

¶24

VP

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Demag Cranes and Components (India) Private Limited Vs G D India Private Limited

Official Liquidator Vs Nil

Official Liquidator Vs Nil

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

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

Shri K Kiran Kumar Vs Union of India