Allowed

Smt. P. Bramaramba v. Dr. Tulip Chamany

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2021CMP/65/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka appointed Sri B. Yoginath, a retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator to resolve a lease dispute. The court invoked its powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to lack of agreement between parties on the arbitrator's appointment despite a valid arbitration clause.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri B. Yoginath, Retired District Judge, as Sole Arbitrator to enter reference under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Smt. P. Bramaramba Vs Dr. Tulip Chamany — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 65/2021

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

SMT. P. BRAMARAMBA D/O SRI P RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDIG AT NO.178, 18TH MAIN, 4TH SECTOR, H.S.R.LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560102..

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. P B RAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

DR. TULIP CHAMANY D/O MR. LOUIS ANTHONY ALPHANSO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.41, HIMAGIRI MEADOWS, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560083.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. B C CHETHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND

¶14

¶15

CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR AS SOUGHT FOR IN TERMS OF THE LEASE DEED, NAMELY SRI VEERANNA G TIGADI A RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE SAID LEASE DEED DATED 01.07.2016 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition relying upon the registered Lease Deed dated 01.07.2016, and the arbitration clause therein reads as under:-

¶19

"13. DISPUTES

¶20

"Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Deed, or any breach or alleged breach thereof, shall be finally settled by an arbitral Tribunal appointed by mutual consent of the parties and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language and shall be held at an appropriate location in Bangalore. "

¶21

¶22

The petitioner has inducted the respondent

¶23

into the subject property, which measures an extent of 13,967 square feet in the property bearing No.640, 80 feet road, 4th block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034, as a tenant and the lease of the subject property in favour of the respondent is for a period of 15 years commencing from 01.07.2016.

¶24

The petitioner’s case is that by issuance of the necessary legal notice she has terminated the lease because of certain breach by the respondents, and as the respondent has denied termination of lease and the liability to hand over the vacant possession as also the arrears of rent, she has also caused notice dated 28.12.2020 invoking the arbitration clause nominating a retired District Judge as the Sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the Dispute. The respondent, who has received such notice dated 28.12.2020, has refused to accept the petitioner's nomination. On the other hand, the respondent, without denying the lease agreement or

¶25

¶26

the arbitration clause, has pleaded certain

¶27

circumstances to explain the alleged breach denying any deliberate failure, and she has also relied upon certain purported deficiencies in the construction pleading losses.

¶28

It is obvious from the rival claims as seen in

¶29

the exchange of legal notices that there is no dispute about the respondent’s induction into the subject property as the tenant or the lease deed. But the parties have respective claims against the other and there is no unanimity as to who could be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator despite exchange of the legal notices as contemplated under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to enter reference of the dispute. Hence the following:-

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition is allowed, and Sri B. Yoginath, a retired District Judge, Address: No. 201, 1^st 'G' Cross, 3^rd Stage, 4^th Block, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru560 079 (Ph: 9449807747, Landline - 080 23480773) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Arbitration Centre.

¶33

The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and Sri B. Yoginath, a retired District Judge, Address: No. 201, 1^st 'G' Cross, 3^rd Stage, 4^th Block, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru-560 079 (Ph: 9449807747, Landline - 080 23480773) as required

¶34

¶35

under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief

¶36

Justice of India Scheme, 1996.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

mbb

Smt. P. Bramaramba v. Dr. Tulip Chamany

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. P. Bramaramba v. Dr. Tulip Chamany

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

Sri Ranganath K R Vs the State of Karnataka

Shantha Jogi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Narasimharaju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Rajamma Vs Divisional Forest Officer

K C Rohith Vs the Prl. Secretary

K C Udaya Vs the Prl. Secretary