Allowed

Sri Anjaneyaswamy Transport v. Podar International School

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2022CMP/151/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a civil miscellaneous petition filed under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to appoint a substitute arbitrator, holding that the seat must be Mysore as it is where the cause of action arose, despite the contract specifying Mumbai.

What did the court decide?

Smt. S.H. Renukadevi appointed as sole arbitrator; seat of arbitration fixed at Mysore.

Sri Anjaneyaswamy Transport Vs Podar International School — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CMP No. 151 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.151 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. ANJANEYASWAMY TRANSPORT NO.303, LOKANAYAKANAGAR, KALEGOWDA SITE, 7^TH AND 8^TH CROSS, HEBBAL, MYSORE -570 016. (REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI T S RAMESH) (BY SRI. A V AMARNATHAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

PODAR INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE, MYSURU-570 017. (REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR). (BY SRI.K.ABHINAV ANAND.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15(2) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO PASS THE ORDER SUBSTITUTING AN ARBITRATOR TO TAKE UP THE DISPUTE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE AGREEMENT DATED 16/05/2014, AT MYSURU.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

CMP No. 151 of 2021

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

a. Pass the order substituting an Arbitrator to take up the dispute arisen between the Petitioner and the Respondent in connection with the agreement dated 16/05/2014, at Mysuru.

¶22

b. Set aside the order passed by the Principle District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru, in A A No.8/2016 dated 25.01.2017 as per Annexure-D.

¶23

c. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fits to grant in the circumstances of the case, including awarding costs of these proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

The petitioner and the respondent have entered into an agreement for Transports Services Contract on 16.05.2014 whereunder the petitioner who is a proprietary firm carrying on its business in Mysore was to render transport services to the school of the respondent in the District of Mysore. The said agreement is governed by an arbitration clause in

¶25

¶26

CMP No. 151 of 2021

¶27

terms of Clause 16 thereof, which is reproduced

¶28

hereunder for easy reference:

¶29

16. Dispute Resolution:

¶30

“If any difference or dispute arises between the Parties hereto during the subsistence of this Agreement or thereafter, in connection with this Agreement, the Parties shall refer such dispute to arbitration, through the sole arbitrator appointed by the Trustee of the School. The Trustee shall have the right to appoint any bonafide person and or an employee of the school as arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings shall be in English language and proceedings shall be held at Mumbai, India. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties”.

¶31

A dispute having arisen as regards the payment due

¶32

and liability to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner, the petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause and arbitral proceedings had been initiated by the appointment of one Mr.M.A.Khan, Advocate, High Court of Bombay in Mumbai. However, the said arbitrator has recused himself and as such, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

¶33

Sri.A.V.Amarnathan, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

would submit that the entire cause of action has

¶35

¶36

CMP No. 151 of 2021

¶37

arisen in the city of Mysore. The services which are required to be provided by the petitioner to the respondent was in the City of Mysore. There is no cause of action which has arisen in Mumbai to confer any jurisdiction for vesting the seat of arbitration in the city of Mumbai. The substitute arbitrator may be appointed and arbitral proceedings be held in Mysore.

¶38

Sri.K.Abhinav Anand, learned counsel for the respondent would however submits that in terms of the contract which has been entered into between the parties, the arbitration clause clearly and categorically specifies that the arbitration would have to be held at Mumbai and he therefore submits that the substitute arbitrator who may be appointed by this Court should conduct the proceedings in Mumbai.

¶39

Heard Sri.A.V.Amarnatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Abhinav Anand, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the papers.

¶40

¶41

CMP No. 151 of 2021

¶42

From a perusal of the Transport Service Agreement, it is clear that though the respondent is registered and having a Head Office in Bombay, the respondent also carries on its business in Mysore and the school is established in Mysore as regards which the petitioner was required to provide transport services in Mysore. Apart from, the respondent being registered and having its office in Mumbai, there is no other cause of action which is attributable to the City of Mumbai. Though Sri.Abhinav Anand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in terms of clause, the arbitration has to be held at Mumbai, I am of the considered opinion that even the parties by way of consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a place which does not have any relation to any cause of action as regards the dispute which has arisen between the parties.

¶43

In view of the same, I’am of the considered opinion that the arbitrator would have to be appointed in a

¶44

¶45

CMP No. 151 of 2021

¶46

place where the cause of action has arisen both the venue and the seat of arbitration would have to be in

¶47

the city of Mysore. As such, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The petition is allowed.

¶50

ii. Smt. S.H. Renukadevi, a retired Civil Judge of the District Judiciary of the State of Karnataka is appointed as a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties.

¶51

iii. The previous arbitrator Sri.M.A.Khan, learned advocate who had been appointed as an arbitrator having resigned, needless to say, the said arbitrator is required to return all the original documents and pleadings which could be collected by both the parties jointly to be made available to the new arbitrator appointed.

¶52

iv. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Smt. S.H. Renukadevi learned arbitrator.

¶53

v. All contentions are left open.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Prs*

Sri Anjaneyaswamy Transport v. Podar International School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anjaneyaswamy Transport v. Podar International School

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

Mr. Arthur J. Pereira Vs the Land Acquisition Officer

Yellappa S/O Sanna Basappa Vs S D H Chandraverma Raja

Sri Noor Mohammed Sharifi Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri Pattad T Venkatesh Vs M/s. Kamalya Builders and Developers LLP

Sri T Gopala Reddy Vs M/S Elv Builders

Sri K Raghava Reddy Vs Bengaluru Development Authority