Allowed

Sri. Biju Thomas v. Sri. Sebastian Moolechalil Joseph

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2021CMP/27/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous petition filed under Sections 11 and 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a sole arbitrator. Following consultation with counsel, the Court appointed a retired District Judge to adjudicate disputes between the petitioner and respondent regarding their partnership firm.

What did the court decide?

Sri Sarvodaya Shettigar, retired District Judge, was appointed as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute.

Sri. Biju Thomas Vs Sri. Sebastian Moolechalil Joseph — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 27/2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. BIJU THOMAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI THOMAS KUNNUMPURATH GREEN VALLEY PLANTATION KANTHAVARA VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SRI. SEBASTIAN MOOLECHALIL JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI JOSEPH CHANDY R/O 112(3/64) MOOLECHALIL THALAPPULAM VILLAGE, MEENACHI TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT KERALA - 686 579.

¶12

... RESPONDENT (By SRI.K. SUNDRAM AND SRI. TARUN SUNDARAM., ADVOCATES)

¶13

¶14

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 23 OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 30.07.2015 (ANNEXURE "A") TO ADJUDICATE UPON AND DETERMINE THE DISPUTES/DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARISING UNDER THE SAID AGREEMENT IN LIGHT OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996; AND IN TERMS OF SEC.11 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996.

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed for appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ' the Act' ) to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner as also

¶19

the learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The petitioner and the respondent have entered into the

¶20

¶21

partnership deed dated 30.7.2015 constituting a partnership firm in the name and style, M/s Canara Latex. The petitioner's case is that certain immovable property is purchased in the name of the respondent utilizing the firm's account. The respondent, after this purchase, has remained incommunicado and away from the firm's business. These assertions are stoutly denied by the respondent. The partnership deed contemplates resolution of all disputes concerning the rights of partners by arbitration under the provisions of the Act.

¶22

Though the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the legal notice dated 24.11.2020 is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act as the petitioner has failed to suggest the name of the arbitrator and call upon the respondent to signify his acceptance of the appointment of such arbitration, after being heard for some time, in consultation with the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Sri

¶23

¶24

Sarvodaya Shettigar, a retired District Judge be appointed as the sole arbitrator to enter reference.

¶25

In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. Sri Sarvodaya Shettigar, retired District Judge, Door No.6/54-D, Kalyani House, Saraswathi Nagar, Parkala - 576 107, Udupi District, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute. The Office is directed to communicate this order as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996.

¶26

SD/JUDGE

¶27

Sri. Biju Thomas v. Sri. Sebastian Moolechalil Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Biju Thomas v. Sri. Sebastian Moolechalil Joseph

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

Jowherunnisa W/O Nazeer Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Girijamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Narasimha Reddy a Vs State of Karnataka

Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatachala Reddy Vs the Tahsildar

K K Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka