Allowed

M/S.Exclusive Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. v. Nestway Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2021CMP/259/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an arbitrator due to the Respondent's breach of contract and failure to appoint an arbitrator as per the agreement. The Court allowed the petition and appointed a former Judge as the sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.V. Chandrashekar as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

M/S.Exclusive Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nestway Technologies Pvt… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 259/2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

M/S.EXCLUSIVE LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 471, SECTOR 3, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN - 302 017. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. VEENA J. KAMATH, ADV. (VC))

¶10

AND :

¶11

NESTWAY TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. R/O - 1546 AND 1547, 19TH MAIN ROAD, SECTOR 1, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 102. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(SERVED)

¶13

¶14

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT AN

¶15

¶16

ARBITRATOR AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE VENDOR AGREEMENT DATED 15/06/2016 IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE, AS PER ANNEXUREA OF THIS PETITION AND ETC.

¶17

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) seeking appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate upon the dispute between the parties.

¶20

The petitioner entered into a vendor agreement with the respondent on 15.06.2016. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent has breached the vendor agreement and has not made payments that had to be made to the petitioner in

¶21

¶22

terms of the agreement. The petitioner issued a notice on 11.06.2020 demanding the outstanding dues including certain refundable security deposits and rental payments. This notice was not replied to by the respondent and on 06.07.2020 the petitioner issued two notices; one seeking demand that was made in the earlier notice and the other seeking appointment of an arbitrator in the light of the dispute resolution by way of arbitration being a part of the agreement.

¶23

Both the notices dated 06.07.2020 have been served upon the respondent and they have chosen not to reply. Again on 16.12.2020, a third notice, clearly indicating that it is a notice for initiation of appointment of an arbitrator is issued by the petitioner. This notice again is not replied by the respondent despite it being served, as is found in the acknowledgment of service appended to the writ petition. At that juncture the petitioner approached

¶24

¶25

this Court in the subject petition seeking appointment of arbitrator.

¶26

This Court issues emergent notice to the

¶27

respondent and despite the respondent being served with the notice, has remained unrepresented in the proceedings before this Court. The resolution of the dispute between the parties is by way of arbitration in terms of clause 17 as is found in the agreement. Clause 17 of the agreement reads as follows:

¶28

“17. Any disputes/differences arising between the Parties out of or in relation to the construction, meaning and operation of this Agreement or breach thereof, that may not be amicably settled between the Parties within 30 days of the occurrence thereof, shall be referred to arbitration before the sole arbitrator mutually appointed by the Parties and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 amended from time to time. The arbitral award shall be final and binding on the Parties hereto. Neither the existence of any dispute,

¶29

¶30

difference, controversy or claim or the fact that the arbitration is pending in between the Parties will relieve either Party of its obligations under the Agreement except as to matter in dispute or the matter pending before arbitration. The place of arbitration shall be in Bangalore, Karnataka and all proceedings shall be conducted in English only.”

¶31

In the light of existence of arbitration clause in the

¶32

agreement and several notices having gone unheeded, the petition deserves to be allowed by way of appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the following;

¶33

ORDER

¶34

[a] The petition is allowed, appointing Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.V. Chandrashekar, a former Judge of this Court, (No. 406, III Floor, Rama Sridhar Apartment, II Cross, 9^th Main, BTM Layout II Stage, Bengaluru – 560 076, Mobile- 9886323178) as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

[b) The Arbitrator is free to regulate his days of work.

¶38

[c] All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings.

¶39

[d] The Office is directed to communicate this order

¶40

to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.V. Chandrashekar, former Judge, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

LRS.

M/S.Exclusive Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. v. Nestway Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Exclusive Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. v. Nestway Technologies Pvt. 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

Mr Nirmal Kumar Jaipuria Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Upendra Kumar Prajapati Vs Smt. Rajani Singh

Smt Chythra Vs the Karnataka Housing Board

M/S Unicca Emporis Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Bhawar Lifestyle Vs Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited

Srinath Maddi Vs the Executive Officer