Allowed

M/S. Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2021CMP/254/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court appointed Justice Jayanth Patel as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve a commercial dispute arising from a contract between the petitioner and respondent, where parties failed to agree on an arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanth Patel as Sole Arbitrator at Bengaluru

M/S. Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. Vs Mangalore Refinery and… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.254/2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/S.Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., A Company registered under The Companies Act, 1913, Presently having its registered office at Phirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai - 400 079. Represented by its Commercial Branch Manager, Mr. Sumit Malik. … Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri R. Kiran, Advocate)

¶10

And:

¶11

Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., A Company registered under The Companies Act, 1956 Having its Registered Office at Kuthethoor P.O. Via Katipalla, Mangaluru - 575 030 Represented by its Managing Director. … Respondent

¶12

(By Smt. Harshitha M., Advocate for Sri Keertikumar D Naik, Advocate)

¶13

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with Section 9 of the contract (GCC)

¶14

¶15

dated 16.12.2014 as per Annexure-A and in accordance with Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and etc.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has sought for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute amongst the petitioner and the respondent in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the 'Letter of Acceptance' dated 16.12.2004.

¶19

The petitioner submits that the petitioner was a successful bidder as regards the tender floated by the respondent and after completion of work, disputes have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent insofar as the respondent has sought to make a claim of liquidated damages.

¶20

It is submitted that in terms of the tender document, as per the standard terms, Section 9 provides for arbitration, copy of extraction of relevant clause is found at Annexure-'A1'. It is submitted that the arbitration clause was sought to be invoked as per the notice dated

¶21

¶22

21.12.2019, detailing the dispute, which was served on the respondent, which is not in dispute. Due to absence of concurrence as regards appointment of Arbitrator, the present petition is filed.

¶23

Upon notice, the respondent has put in appearance and submits that the petition may be allowed while keeping open the contentions of the parties.

¶24

Both the counsels submit that despite the agreed procedure, they are willing for arbitration by a sole Arbitrator with the venue at Arbitration Center at Bengaluru.

¶25

Taking note of the admitted relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, that there exists an arbitration clause providing for arbitration and taking note of the dispute as detailed in the legal notice issued by the petitioner and also the joint submission of parties, as there

¶26

is indeed dispute between the parties arising from the contractual relationship, which provides for arbitration clause, the petition is allowed.

¶27

¶28

Accordingly, this petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is disposed of by appointing Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanth Patel, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, 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

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

¶32

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

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Np/-

M/S. Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd.

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

Lilavathi @ Prathibha Vs Mohan. N

Smt. Sushma M Vs Sri S.Girish @ Praveen

Smt.Malashree D Vs Sri. Sridhar N M

M/S Medreich Limited Vs the Union of India

Sportz Village Foundation Vs Siva Sivani Educational Institution Society

M/S Kenstream Ventures LLP Vs M/S Sports and Leisure Apparel Ltd.