Allowed

Vivek Khetawat v. K Ravindra Reddy

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2021CMP/97/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous petition filed under Sections 11(6) and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute arising from an agreement of sale dated 05.03.2012 after the respondent failed to respond to the notice for concurrence regarding appointment.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. A. C. Vidyadhara as the Sole Arbitrator in the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru.

Vivek Khetawat Vs K Ravindra Reddy — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 97/2017

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

VIVEK KHETAWAT AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O D D KHETAWAT #1-3, EL PALACIO #6, EDWARD ROAD BENGALOORU-560 052 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER KAMLESH DUNGARWAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O K L DUNGARWAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O K L DUNGARWAL #302, GOLD VIEW APARTMENT #4, CRESCENT ROAD BENGALOORU-560 001. ... PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI VINAYAKEERTHY M., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

K RAVINDRA REDDY

¶10

PROPRIETOR SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS NANJAPPA REDDY BUILDING II CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA CV RAMAN NAGAR POST BENGALOORU-560 093.

¶11

¶12

DHRUV SAWHNEY AGED BOUT 38 YEARS S/O HARPAL SINGH APARTMENT, #002, PRESTIGE SHANGRILLA EDWARD ROAD BENGALOORU-560 102. ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(R-1 - SERVED; R2 - DELETED V/O DATED 13.02.2020)

¶14

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11(6) & 4 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO EXERCISE THE POWER UNDER SECTIONS 11(6) & 14 OF THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for appointment of an arbitrator in light of the disputes that have arisen with respect to the agreement of sale dated 05.03.2012.

¶18

Petitioner submits that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent - M/s. Sai Teja Constructions, represented by its proprietor and that in the

¶19

¶20

absence of respondent coming forward to execute the sale deed, petitioner had issued legal notice dated 28.02.2017 seeking to invoke the arbitration clause and the said notice though addressed to the address as mentioned in the agreement of sale has come back with the postal shara 'left'. It is submitted that the proceedings in A.A.No. 211/2015 were also initiated as against the respondent. In light of the absence of concurrence regarding appointment of arbitrator, present petition has been filed.

¶21

The respondent has remained unrepresented despite service of notice being held sufficient.

¶22

Taking note of the agreement of sale at Annexure-A between the parties, taking note of the Clause2(a) of the agreement, which provides for resolution of dispute by way of arbitration and also taking note of the legal notice issued to the respondent detailing the dispute, it is clear that there exists an agreement between the parties containing arbitration clause and dispute having arisen and respondent being called upon to express

¶23

¶24

concurrence regarding appointment of arbitrator, there being no response, present petition has been filed. In light of the discussion as made out, case is made out for allowing of the petition.

¶25

Further, the legal notice invoking arbitration clause has been sent to the address as mentioned in the agreement of sale at Annexure-A and that the notice being returned with the postal shara 'left', notice could be held to be sufficient in terms of Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶26

In light of the discussion as made above and noticing that there is no representation on behalf of respondent, petition is allowed . Sri. A. C. Vidyadhara, Retired District Judge, No.776, 22^nd Cross, 19^th Main, Second Sector, H.S.R. Layout, Bengaluru – 560102, 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.

¶27

¶28

(i) All claims and contentions are left/kept open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶29

(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.

¶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

VP

Vivek Khetawat v. K Ravindra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Khetawat v. K Ravindra Reddy

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

Smt R Shruthi Vs Sri Pradeep Shirur

Smt Manju .N @ Puttamanjula Vs Sri Chinnaswamy

Smt Roopa N Vs R S Venubalaji

B.L. Prabhakar Vs Scholar Alley Private Limited

Smt. Roopa Raju Vs Smt.a.N.Kalyani

Cowrks India Private Ltd. Vs M/s Mahindra Happinest Developers Ltd.