Allowed

Mrs Anna Chandy v. M/S Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022CMP/22/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The petition was filed against a company for non-compliance with a joint development agreement's arbitration clause. The Court appointed a retired High Court judge as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Justice V. Jagannathan, former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

Mrs Anna Chandy Vs M/S Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.22 OF 2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MRS. ANNA CHANDY W/O MR. D.K. CHANDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT B- 1801, MIRAYA ROSE BY UKN 66/1, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SANJAY NAIR., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

M/S. WATERLINE HOTELS PVT.LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 10^TH FLOOR, GAMMA BLOCK, SIGMA SOFT TECH PARK NO.7, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶11

ALSO AT: A-303, MIRAYA ROSE, 66/1, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. GAUTAM U. NAMBISAN.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHAMANTH.S.N., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT THE ARBITRATOR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT WHO ALONG WITH THE PETITIONER'S CHOICE OF ARBITRATOR HON'BLE SRI. KUKKAJE RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (RETD.) WOULD APPOINT THE THIRD

¶15

²

¶16

ARBITRATOR TO CONSTITUTE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT, IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 25 OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 31/03/2011 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR CONSIDERING THE VALUE OF THE CLAIMS TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT, IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 25 OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 31.03.2011 AND ETC.

¶17

THIS C.M.P. COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioner-Mrs. Anna Chandy against the respondent-M/s. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in pursuance of Arbitration Clause of the Joint Development Agreement dated 31.03.2011 vide AnnexureA.

¶20

Clause-25 of the said Agreement, which

¶21

contains an Arbitration clause, reads as under:-

¶22

“ 25. ARBITRATION

¶23

In the event of the Parties being unable to resolve the dispute by conciliation as above or within such further time as the Parties may mutually agree, the dispute may be referred by either Party to arbitration by a panel of three arbitrators (one to be appointed by First Party, the other by Second Party and third by the two arbitrators) in accordance with the

¶24

³

¶25

provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any re-enactment or modification thereof and shall be decided by such Arbitral Tribunal. The award shall be final and binding on the Parties.

¶26

i) The arbitration will be held in Bangalore City,

¶27

ii) The language of the arbitration proceedings will be in English.

¶28

The disputes shall be resolved in thirty working days of reference or within a reasonable period as may be agreed between the Parties in writing.

¶29

The material on record discloses that since

¶30

disputes arose between the parties in relation to the aforesaid JDA dated 31.03.2011 containing the aforesaid arbitration agreement at Clause No.25, on 16.09.2021, the petitioner invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause and issued a notice to the respondent putting forth various claims and contentions and nominating and appointing a sole arbitrator and calling upon the respondent to give their concurrence / consent to refer the dispute to arbitration. However, despite having received the said notice, the respondent has neither sent any reply nor complied with the requests and demands made in the aforesaid arbitration notice.

¶31

⁴

¶32

4. Subsequently, the parties have not only failed

¶33

to resolve their disputes, but they have also not reached any consensus / agreement for appointment of an arbitrator and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to allow this petition by referring the dispute between the parties to arbitration with the consent of both sides by appointing Hon’ble Justice V. Jagannathan, former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, to act as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as per the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International) at Bengaluru.

¶35

In the result, I pass the following

¶36

⁵

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶39

(ii) Hon’ble Justice V. Jagannathan, former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, is hereby appointed as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties as per the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International) at Bengaluru.

¶40

(iii) All rival claims, contentions, etc., of both parties including contentions relating to maintainability, arbitrability, jurisdiction, limitation, stamp duty, etc., are left/kept open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶41

(iv) A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further and also to Hon’ble Justice V. Jagannathan, former Judge, High Court

¶42

⁶

¶43

of Karnataka, to the address available with the said Centre.

¶44

(v) Registry is directed to return all original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Bmc/-

Mrs Anna Chandy v. M/S Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Anna Chandy v. M/S Waterline Hotels Pvt. 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

M/S Davanagere University Vs National Council of Teacher Education (Ncte)

Prakashnagar Credit Co-Operative Society Limited Vs Smt Meeramukunda

H S Vishwanatha Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative

Mr.Selvendhiiran Selvam Vs International Medical School Management

Shashikala G Rao Vs the Principal Secretary to the Govt of Karnataka

Sree Anupama Education and Rural Development Vs the Executive Engineer