Allowed

Soumyadeb Shaw v. Tamron Astra Bio Chemicals Private Limited

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022CMP/147/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous petition filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court appointed a sole arbitrator, Sri. N.K. Shripathi, to adjudicate disputes arising from an agreement dated May 9, 2016, between the petitioner and the respondent, while directing the arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of the Bangalore Arbitration Centre.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. N.K. Shripathi, retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator; arbitration to be conducted under Bangalore Arbitration Centre.

Soumyadeb Shaw Vs Tamron Astra Bio Chemicals Private Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CMP No. 147 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 147 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SOUMYADEB SHAW 31 YEARS OLD SOLE PROPRIETOR OF SYMBOLIC LOGISTICS A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 1^ST FLOOR 23 B, R.P. BASU ROAD KOLAKTA-700001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH SASIKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

TAMRON ASTRA BIO-CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED 3^RD FLOOR, 799 MIG, 2^ND PHASE DOUBLE ROAD, (B SECTOR) S. UNNIKRISHNAN ROAD YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE-560064 KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. ANKIT JAIN EMAIL ID [email protected] ALSO AT: HOSUE NO.4411 MERIGOLD LANE, DLF, PHASE IV GURGAON-120222 HARYANA REP. BY IS DIRECTOR MR. ANKIT JAIN EMAIL ID [email protected]

¶12

ALSO AT: C/O HINDUSTAN RASAYAN PVT LD

¶13

¶14

CMP No. 147 of 2021

¶15

403, VIKRAM TOWER RANJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI-110008 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. ANKIT JAIN EMAIL ID [email protected]

¶16

ALSO AT: C/O BALYAN PRODUCTIONS LLP A-2, 3^RD FLOOR, GK ENCLAVE PART-1, GREATER KAILASH NEW DELHI-110048 REP. BY MR. AMIT KUMAR

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. RISHABHA RAJ THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6)(A) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE AND DECIDE THE DISPUTES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT ARISING OUT OF AND IN CONNECTION WITH AGREEMENT DATED MAY 9, 2016 AND ECT.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

a. Appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate and decide the disputes and differences between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of and in connection with Agreement dated May 9, 2016.

¶24

b. Award costs of this Petition to the Petitioner; and/or

¶25

¶26

CMP No. 147 of 2021

¶27

c. Pass any other order or orders as deemed necessary in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

The petitioner and the respondent entered into an Agreement dated 9.05.2016 which is governed by an arbitration clause, in terms of Clause 1.38 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶29

“1.38 . Any dispute arising between TAMRON ASTRA and the AGENT in connection with or arising out of this Agreement or in the interpretation of the terms thereof or the goods which are the subject matter thereof, such disputes shall be referred to a single Arbitrator if agreeable to both of TAMRON ASTRA failing which, to two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of TAMRON ASTRA and THE AGENT or in the event of the failure of such two arbitrators aforesaid to an umpire, before their entry upon their reference in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modifications of reenactment thereof for the time being in force and proceedings in such arbitration shall be held in Bangalore and not elsewhere. The award or awards in such arbitration may be made a rule of the High Court of Judicature at Bangalore at the instance of either party.”

¶30

There being certain disputes between the petitioner and the respondent, various notices were exchanged. Vide notice dated 12.11.2020 the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and appointed its nominee arbitrator. The respondent replied to the same vide

¶31

¶32

CMP No. 147 of 2021

¶33

reply notice dated 11.12.2020 denying various allegations made by the petitioner making further claims, however, did not accept the nominee as suggested by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶34

Upon service of notice, the respondent has entered appearance. Sri.Rishabha Raj Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has no objection for the petition to be allowed and an arbitrator to be appointed. The only dispute being the name of the Arbitrator nominated by the petitioner.

¶35

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. Sri.N.K.Shripathi, retired District Judge is appointed as a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties.

¶38

ii. The arbitration to be carried out under the aegis of the Bangalore Arbitration Centre.

¶39

iii. All contentions are left open.

¶40

¶41

CMP No. 147 of 2021

¶42

iv. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director, Bangalore Arbitration Centre.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

lPn

Soumyadeb Shaw v. Tamron Astra Bio Chemicals Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soumyadeb Shaw v. Tamron Astra Bio Chemicals Private Limited

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. Sampangappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nalina Bai Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri L Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

The Official Liquidator Vs Sr Venkat Ramana Kaluvakolanu Ex-Director

Official Liquidator of M/S. Hemavathi Coffee Vs Nil

Mrs Dr Frederica Samuel Vs M/S S P Constructions