Allowed

Mr Irudayasamy Christopher v. Fujitsu Solutions India Private Ltd.

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2022CMP/120/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator as the respondent, Fujitsu Solutions India Private Ltd, failed to appoint one after serving a notice dated 14.12.2021. The court allowed the petition and appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep D. Waingankar as the sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was granted the appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep D. Waingankar as the sole arbitrator to conduct the arbitration proceedings.

Mr Irudayasamy Christopher Vs Fujitsu Solutions India Private… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶4

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.120/2022

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

MR IRUDAYASAMY CHRISTOPHER S/O S IRUDAYASAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.10/15A KEELA UDAYAR STREET PONMALAI PATTI TRICHY-620004 TAMIL NADU.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(By SRI. VIKRAM G., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

FUJITSU SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD AT WE WORK - GALAXY 43 RESIDENCY ROAD ASHOK NAGAR SHANTHALA NAGAR BANGALORE-560025. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED-UNREPRESENTED)

¶12

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 R/W RULE 2 OF SCHEME FOR APPOINTMENT OF

¶13

¶14

ARBITRATOR BY KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, PRAYING TO APPOINT A PROPER PERSON WHOSE FEE IS TO BE WITHIN THE REACH OF THE PETITIONER AS THE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS WITH RESPECT TO APPOINTMENT DATED 20/11/2019 AT ANNEXURE-E OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE APPOINT ANYONE AS THE ARBITRATOR AND FOR SUCH OTHER ORDERS DIRECTIONS ETC THAT THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has invoked Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relying upon Clause 12 of the letter of appointment issued by the respondent. The arbitration clause, apart from contemplating reference of all disputes to a single arbitrator, contemplates appointment of such sole arbitrator by the company with the stipulation that appointment of sole arbitrator by the company shall not be objected or challenged to by the petitioner. There are exchange of notices, and the last of such notice is dated 14.12.2021. In this notice the petitioner has called upon

¶18

¶19

to appoint the sole arbitrator in terms of the letter of appointment. The petitioner's case is that though this notice dated 14.12.2021 is served on the respondent, the sole arbitrator is not appointed. The respondent is served, but the assertions as aforesaid remain uncontested. Hence, the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

[a] The petition is allowed;

¶22

[b] Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep D.

¶23

Waingankar, a Former Judge of this Court, Address: No.101, Green Leaf Raaga Apartments, 11th Main, 14th “A” Cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 003, is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and

¶24

¶25

International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and

¶26

International), Bengaluru.

¶27

[c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order [by E-mail] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru and also to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep D. Waingankar, a Former Judge of this Court, as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

SA/-

Mr Irudayasamy Christopher v. Fujitsu Solutions India Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Irudayasamy Christopher v. Fujitsu Solutions India Private Ltd.

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

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Shree Balaji Enterprises

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Thatchinamoorthi S

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Manaranjan Brahma

Sri Mithun a S Vs Digantha Mudrana Ltd.

Sri Shantha Kumar Vs Mohammed Israr

Official Liquidator of M/S Kirloskar Investments and Finance Ltd., (in Liquidation) Vs Mr M C Somashekar