Allowed

M/S. Infinitum Hospitality v. Mr. P. Venkatesan

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2021CMP/98/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court allowed the application for appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from lease deeds dated 01.02.2016 between the petitioner and the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Sri. Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat appointed as Sole Arbitrator.

M/S. Infinitum Hospitality Vs Mr. P. Venkatesan — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 98/2019

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

M/S. INFINITUM HOSPITALITY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND HAVING OFFICE AT NO.2008, 2^ND FLOOR, 100 FEET ROAD, HAL 2^ND STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038 REP. BY ITS PARTNER MRS.ASHMEET KAUR ... PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

MR. P. VENKATESAN S/O POUN RAJULU CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO.101, 3^RD CROSS, CHIKKA LAKSHMAIAH LAYOUT, DRC POST, BENGALURU-29.

¶10

SMT. DR. SASHIKALA W/O DR. B SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT 13/A, KAPILA, RUSTAMJI VILLAGE, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-66.

¶11

¶12

SRI. AKSHAY S/O DR. B SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT 13/A, KAPILA, RUSTAMJI VILLAGE, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-66.

¶13

SMT. SUJATHA WIFE OF LATE R. MAHINDRA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT 13/A, KAPILA, RUSTAMJI VILLAGE, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-66.

¶14

SMT. SHOBA RUPENDRA W/O LATE C.S. RUPENDRA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A 323/1, "PRIYA RAKSHA NILAYA", INNER CIRCLE, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-66.

¶15

KUM. PRIYANKA D/O LATE C.S. RUPENDRA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/A 323/1, "PRIYA RAKSHA NILAYA", INNER CIRCLE, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-66. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI BIMBADHAR M. GOWDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6)

¶17

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR FOR RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS AS PER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DEEDS DATED 01/02/2016 AS PER ANNEXURES-A AND B AND ETC.

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking for

¶22

appointment of an arbitrator to enter upon reference and arbitrate the dispute arising out of the lease deed dated 01.02.2016 at Annexure-A and the lease deed bearing same date, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-B.

¶23

It is submitted that disputes have arisen as regards the tenancy relationship between the petitioner who is the lessee and the owners of the property who are collectively arrayed as respondents 1 to 6. Lease deed at Annexure-A is an agreement between the petitioner herein and the 1^st respondent and the resolution of dispute is as per Clause-20, which provides for arbitration. It is further submitted that another Lease Deed has been entered into on 01.02.2016 between the petitioner herein who is the lessee on one hand and respondents 1 to 6 who are lessors and clause for arbitration is found at Clause-20. It is further submitted that a legal notice was issued by the petitioner to

¶24

¶25

the respondents invoking arbitration clause, copy of which is produced at Annexure-J. It is further submitted that notice has been served on respondents.

¶26

Upon notice, respondents are represented by

¶27

their learned counsel and after hearing the matter for sometime, both sides submit that a sole arbitrator could be appointed to enter upon reference as regards to the dispute between the petitioner and respondents arising out of the lease deeds dated 01.02.2016 enclosed at Annexues-A and B. However, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6 submits that there are certain disputes interse between 1^st respondent and respondents 2 to 6, which however is not related to the dispute being referred.

¶28

The dispute that has arisen out of the lease deeds at Annexures-A and B both dated 01.02.2006 between the petitioner and the respondents is referred for resolution by way of arbitration. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Sri. Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, Retired District Judge, No.2, 1^st Cross, Judicial Layout, Sanjaynagar, RMV II

¶29

¶30

Stage, Bengaluru – 560 094, 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.

¶31

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

¶32

to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(iii) Registry is directed to return all original

¶35

documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

VP

M/S. Infinitum Hospitality v. Mr. P. Venkatesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Infinitum Hospitality v. Mr. P. Venkatesan

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.Dhananjaya.D Vs Smt.Shruthi

Mahesh. M. C. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Pramod Kumar N Vs Mrs Ananya M v

M/S Sreedevi Infra Constructions Private Limited Vs M/S Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited

M/S Slv Estates Vs S K Janardhan Rao Salghur

R Gandhi Vs M/S Elegant Properties