Allowed

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

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2021CMP/274/2019

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 to appoint a sole arbitrator for disputes arising from a Joint Development Agreement between the petitioner and respondent.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Shri. V. N. Ravindra as sole arbitrator; all claims and contentions kept open for the tribunal.

Sri S T Papareddy Vs M/S Sands Infratech Developers India… — 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

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.274/2019

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

Sri S.T. Papareddy, S/o Late Thimma Reddy, Aged about 62 years, R/at. Sarjapur Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. … Petitioner (By Smt. Gowhar Unnisa, Advocate) AND : M/s. Sands Infratech Developers India Private Limited, A Company registered under the India Companies Act, 1956, Having its Office at No.5, First Floor, Sands Plaza, Vignana Nagar Main Road, Bangalore - 560 037. Represented by its Managing Director Mr. V. Sunil Kumar, R/at No.18 and 181/2, Sonavista, Kaveri Street, Basana Nagar, Bangalore - 560 037. … Respondent (By Sri Mahabaleshwar, Advocate)

¶8

¶9

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the petitioner and respondent arise in respect of the Joint Development Agreements dated 20/10/2012 Annexure-A, entered into between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the converted land bearing Sy. No.520/4, Old Sy. No.520/1, measuring 20 guntas, situated at Sarjapura Village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, by allowing the above petition in the interest of justice.

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Present petition has been filed seeking for

¶13

appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the joint development agreement dated 20.10.2012.

¶14

Petitioner submits that petitioner and respondent

¶15

have entered into a Joint Development Agreement, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A. It is further submitted that there have been disputes relating to the execution of Joint Development Agreement as there has been delay in execution of the agreement. Petitioner submits that a legal notice was issued to the respondent at Annexure-B and the same was received by the respondent. As there was no

¶16

¶17

concurrence regarding the appointment of an arbitrator, present petition has been filed.

¶18

Upon notice, learned counsel for the respondent

¶19

submits that efforts have been made for a mediated settlement and that if some more time is granted, they would settle the dispute amicably. The respondent further submits that there has been lapse on the part of the petitioner also contributing to the delay.

¶20

Execution of the Joint Development Agreement is not in dispute. Clause 22 of the said Joint Development Agreement provides for arbitration. The fact that the respondent has received notice sent by the petitioner is not in dispute. Petitioner has laid out the dispute in the legal notice and the dispute is referred to in the petition. Considering that efforts for mediation has failed the matter is to be proceeded with.

¶21

Taking note of Clause-22 of the Joint

¶22

Development Agreement, which provides for arbitration and

¶23

¶24

taking note of the legal notice at Annexure-B, which details the dispute as well as noticing that the said notice has been served, case is made out for allowing the petition.

¶25

Accordingly, petition is allowed . Shri. V. N. Ravindra, Retired District Judge, No.229, Balaji Layout, Vajarahalli, Bynapalya, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru – 560062, 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.

¶26

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

¶27

to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶28

(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.

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S T Papareddy v. M/S Sands Infratech Developers India Private 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

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

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

Shri K Kiran Kumar Vs Union of India