Allowed

Mr M H Sachin v. Mr S M Sunil

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2021CMP/357/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing a retired District Judge as the sole pro-bono arbitrator for disputes arising from a Partnership Deed between the petitioner and respondent.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri V.N. Ravindra, Retired District Judge, as the Sole Pro-Bono Arbitrator for the dispute.

Mr M H Sachin Vs Mr S M Sunil — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.357/2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mr. M.H. Sachin, S/o Sri M.B. Harish Babu, Aged about 31 years, Residing at # 608, 9th C Main, RPC Layout, Bengaluru - 560 040. … Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri K.J. Kamath, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Mr. S.M. Sunil, S/o Sri S.N. Manjunatha Setty, Aged about 45 years, Residing at Veerasavarkar Road, Opposite Siddu's Inn Lodge, Chitradurga - 577 501. … Respondent

¶12

(By Sri V. Ramesh Babu, Advocate)

¶13

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint a Sole Arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in respect of the disputes arisen between the petitioner and the respondent in respect o the Partnership Deed dated 01/10/2014, as per Annexure-A of this petition and etc.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator in light of the dispute that has arisen between the parties to the Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2014.

¶18

The petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent are partners as per the Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2014 entered into amongst them. It is further submitted that during the course of carrying on the business as contemplated under the Partnership Deed, differences have cropped up amongst the parties. As per Clause 19 of the Partnership Deed, dispute resolution mechanism in the form of reference to an Arbitrator is contemplated.

¶19

It is further submitted that a legal notice was issued to the respondent and the learned counsel for respondent who has entered appearance upon notice admits

¶20

¶21

receipt of legal notice. As there was no consent for appointment of an Arbitrator, the present petition is filed.

¶22

The learned counsel for respondent submits that he has filed the statement of objections and has also raised a counter claim while denying the averments of the petition. Hence, it is submitted that the counter claim raised by the respondent may be referred as per Clause 19 of the Partnership Deed for arbitration.

¶23

Taking note of the Partnership Deed at Annexure-'A', Clause 19 which provides for arbitration, noting the dispute as made out in the legal notice as well as the averments in the statement of objections, clearly there exists a dispute that calls for resolution by way of arbitration.

¶24

The learned counsel for petitioner sub that the Arbitration Centre may afford the services of a Pro-Bono Arbitrator as per the Rules of the Arbitration Centre.

¶25

¶26

In light of the discussion made above, the petition is allowed. Sri.V.N.Ravindra, Retired District Judge, to

¶27

enter into the said reference of Arbitration and act as Pro-Bono Arbitrator in the present case in the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

¶28

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

¶29

to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶30

(ii) A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the

¶31

Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter.

¶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/-

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Np/-

Mr M H Sachin v. Mr S M Sunil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr M H Sachin v. Mr S M Sunil

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

P Manikandan Vs M/S Vaigai Thread Processors Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Malasani Linga Setty Sarala Vs the Income Tax Officer

Smt Malasani Veerannasetty Radhalaxmi Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/S. Mysore Sales International Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

M/S S K Construction Vs the General Manager

Sri Mohammed Daanish Zackria Vs M/S Paddy'S Properties LLP