Disposed

Mphasis Limited v. Iti Limited

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2021CMP/37/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous petition for arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court, relying on counsel's consensus and the contract's stipulation for amicable resolution, appointed a mediator first. Arbitration is deferred conditional upon the failure of mediation.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Prashanth Chandra as mediator and reference to arbitration only if mediation fails.

Mphasis Limited Vs Iti Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.37/2020

¶6

BETWEEN : MPHASIS LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, MARATHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, DODDANEKUNDI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 048, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT LEGAL MRS. SILVI JOSEPH. … PETITIONER (BY SRI DHANANJAY JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND : ITI LIMITED, ITI BHAVAN, DOORVANINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 016, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI C.K. NANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶7

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO CONSTITUTE AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BY APPOINTMENT OF A SUITABLE PERSON AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PETITIONER'S

¶8

¶9

CLAIM AS STATED HEREIN, VIDE TENDER/ARBITRATION AGREEMENT DATED 18/07/2011 IN PARA NO.18.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for appointment of a sole arbitrator by adjudication of the petitioner's claim in accordance with Clause 18.00 of the contract dated 18.07.2011 at Annexure-A and the purchase order dated 28.10.2011.

¶13

Petitioner submits that the contract governing the business transaction between the petitioner and respondent contains a clause which provides for arbitration as contained in Clause 18.0. It is further submitted that the petitioner got issued a legal notice calling upon the respondent to express consent regarding the appointment of arbitrator and the said legal notice has been served on the respondent and in light of absence of concurrence for appointment of arbitrator, present petition has been filed.

¶14

¶15

Upon notice, Sri.C.K.Nanda Kumar, learned

¶16

counsel appears for the respondents and contends that Clause-18.0 which provides for arbitration specifies that arbitration should follow only upon efforts for amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties has failed and hence, the reference for arbitration is premature as parties have not resorted to efforts for amicable settlement in terms of Clause 18.01 of the contract. It is further contended that question of adequate stamping of the contract requires to be resolved, but however, submits that

¶17

the same may be kept open to be decided by the arbitrator.

¶18

After hearing both the learned counsel on record, both the counsel submit that in terms of Clause 18.01, prior to proceeding with arbitration, parties are open for considering amicable resolution of dispute by way of negotiation/mediation. It is also not denied by the counsel appearing on both the sides that there are differences that require to be resolved arising from the contract. It is also noticed that the demand for arbitration has been made by

¶19

¶20

way of legal notice and has been served. Accordingly, in light of the above, case is made out for appointment of arbitrator.

¶21

In light of the such stand of learned counsel for both sides, it is made clear that Sri. Prashanth Chandra, is appointed as a mediator at the first instance to make efforts for an amicable resolution of the dispute by way of mediation. Upon conclusion of such proceedings and in the event of any failure of the mediation, the matter would be referred to arbitration.

¶22

Hon’ble Shri. Justice H.G. Ramesh, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, to enter into the 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, in the event the mediation fails.

¶23

Contentions of the parties are kept open while observing that the respondents are at liberty to raise

¶24

¶25

contention regarding stamping of the contract at

¶26

Annexure-A before the arbitrator.

¶27

Accordingly, petition is disposed off . Registry is

¶28

directed to return all original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

VP

Mphasis Limited v. Iti Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mphasis Limited v. Iti 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

Official Liquidator of Vs Exim Bank

Shri D S Vishwanath Vs Official Liquidator

Smt. Shanti Marapatla Vs M/S. Trinity Investment Castings (India) Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Vijaya Energy Plus Private Ltd. Vs M/S Mangalore Internet City Pvt. Ltd.

Anusha G R Vs M H Shashidhar

M/S Smile Electronics Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka