Allowed

Dr Aruna Mohan v. M/S Sm Visions

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2022CMP/111/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was allowed for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The Court found that despite a settlement-friendly MOU, exchange of legal notices indicated a dispute, justifying the appointment.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Justice A.V. Chandrashekar as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the lease dispute.

Dr Aruna Mohan Vs M/S Sm Visions — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.111/2022

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

DR. ARUNA MOHAN W/O DR. MUNISWAMY MOHAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT A-208 BRIGADE GATEWAY APARTMENTS DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BENGLAURU - 560 055.

¶7

REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR. K.GANGE GOWDA S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/ATNO.27, 100 FT. RING ROD, GANGOTRI HOSPITAL BTM LAYOUT 2^ND STAGE BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶8

...PETITIONER (By SRI. ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

M/S SM VISIONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM

¶11

¶12

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 3, SRIKANTESH NILAYA 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND STAGE DOMLUR, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 071.

¶13

REPRESENTEDBY ITS PARTNERS MR. SANJAY BAJAJ AND MRS. MANISHA BAJAJ BOTH R/AT FLAT NO. 740C SOMERSET APARTMENTS BEHIND KIDS KEMP M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT SRI. ASHOK.B. HINCHIGERI (RETIRED) HIGH COURT JUDGE OR ANY OTHER RETIRED HIGH COURT JUDGE, AS A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 30.01.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDER AS NECESSARY UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner and the respondent are parties to the registered Lease Deed dated 30.01.2018 and the parties have agreed for resolution of the disputes by arbitration. The petitioner - landlord and the respondent - tenant do not dispute that they have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) after negotiations for settlement of certain disputes. However, the petitioner has caused legal notices alleging there is breach of even this MOU. The petitioner has finally issued the legal notice dated 18.10.2021 suggesting his nominee as the sole arbitrator. The respondent has issued reply on 06.12.2021 contending that there is no dispute and expressing its willingness to discuss for a settlement.

¶20

While Sri Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, argues in support of the

¶21

¶22

petition, Sri Varun S, who appears for the respondent, submits that the legal notice dated 18.10.2022 is issued without efforts at mutual discussions and therefore the commencement of the arbitral proceedings is not tenable. He also submits that if the commencement of the arbitral proceeding is untenable, the application will have to be necessarily rejected.

¶23

However, this Court is not persuaded to accept the respondent’s objection in view of the undisputed fact that the parties have signed MOU for settlement of the dispute after negotiations, and upon failure of even these terms, there is exchange of notices leading to the latter notices dated 18.10.2021 and 06.12.2021. Therefore, the petition must be allowed and Sri A.V. Chandrashekar, a Former Judge of this Court must be appointed as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute and to conduct arbitral proceedings at the

¶24

¶25

Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bangalore. Hence, the following:

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

[a] The petition is allowed;

¶28

[b] Justice A. V. Chandrashekar, No.406, 3^rd Floor,

¶29

Ramashridhar Apartment, 2^nd Cross, 9^th Main, BTM Layout 2^nd Stage, Bengaluru-560 076, 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 and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru.

¶30

[c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru and Justice A. V. Chandrashekar, No.406, 3^rd Floor,

¶31

¶32

Ramashridhar Apartment, 2^nd Cross, 9^th Main, BTM Layout 2^nd Stage, Bengaluru-560 076 as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Dr Aruna Mohan v. M/S Sm Visions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Aruna Mohan v. M/S Sm Visions

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 T C Udaya Kumar Vs M/S Santhosh Shelters Pvt. Ltd.

Sapna Shetty Vs Sudhakara Shetty

Ms. Payal Sandhu Khurana Vs Alabama Design Consultants LLP

Sri B Rajendra Prasad @ Rajendra Reddy Vs Sri T K Sadashiva Reddy @

Chabbras Associates Vs the Superintending Engineer

Smt Indira Ananthanarayana Vs Nil