Allowed

Sameer M v. D F Silverline Constructions

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2022CMP/163/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under S.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court appointed Sri. S.N. Navalgund, retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; Sri. S.N. Navalgund, retired District Judge, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to conduct the proceedings.

Sameer M Vs D F Silverline Constructions — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.163/2022

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

SAMEER M S/O KHAWAJA MOHIYDDIN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT DOOR NO 144, 1^ST MAIN, MLA LAYOUT, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 032.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(By SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

D. F. SILVERLINE CONSTRUCTIONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 201, BARTON CENTRE 84, M G ROAD, BENGALURU 01, REPTD BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR DANISH FAROOK.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(By SMT.BHARATI PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ARBITRATE THE DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOU DATED 28/02/2014 BY

¶14

¶15

REFERRING THE SAME TO THE ARBITRATION CENTRE, KHANIJA BHAVAN, AT BENGALURU.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The parties to the proceedings have signed a series of documents including the Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.02.2014 and the subsequent Sale Deed dated 04.03.2014. The agreement for resolution of dispute by arbitration is contained in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.02.2014, and the agreement is for arbitration by a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶19

The petitioner vide the Reply Notice dated 16.06.2016, responding to the legal notice dated 03.06.2016 issued on behalf of the respondent, has asserted that the Memorandum of Understanding could not have been terminated and he is entitled to recover certain monies. This exchange of notice is during the

¶20

¶21

year 2016. The petitioner has again issued notice in the month of June 2019 raising dispute contending that he is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1 Crore and invoking the arbitration clause for the commencement of the arbitration proceedings. On behalf of the respondent, the exchange of the two sets of notices is not contested, and it is also not contested that the respondent has not responded to the last of the notices.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that because the Memorandum of Understanding is terminated with the issuance of the legal Notice dated 03.06.2016, the petitioner's claim for money, and therefore, the commencement of the arbitration proceedings, would be time barred. As such this Court must reject the petition.

¶23

This Court, on perusal of the statements in the legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioner in the months of June 2016 and September 2019, is of the

¶24

¶25

considered view that leaving all the contentions open to be decided in the arbitration proceedings, a sole Arbitrator must be appointed to enter reference of the dispute. The petitioner has caused notice for appointment of a retired District Judge to enter reference of the dispute and conduct the arbitration proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru. In the light of afore, the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

[a] The petition is allowed; [b] Sri. S.N. Navalgund, retired District

¶28

Judge, No.2083, 4^th Cross, Judicial Layout, GKVK Post, Yelahanka, Bengaluru – 560 065, 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

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

International), Bengaluru;

¶32

[c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru, and Sri. S.N. Navalgund, retired District Judge, No.2083, 4^th Cross, Judicial Layout, GKVK Post, Yelahanka, Bengaluru – 560 065, as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

AN/-

Sameer M v. D F Silverline Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer M v. D F Silverline Constructions

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 Raghurama Uppangala Vs the Executive Engineer

Sri Chandrappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri M Nagendra Vs M/S Domlur Club

Mr K Mohan Raju Vs Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Smt a Vinovathi Bai Vs Sri M Jayaram

M/S Housing Development Finance Vs Mr S v Bharath