Allowed

Spportzvillage Foundation v. Angels Education Society

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2022CMP/222/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, filed by SportzVillage Foundation against Angels Education Society. The court appointed R.M. Vaidya as a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from an agreement dated 28.03.2018, noting the respondent's failure to comply with the arbitration notice.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. R.M. Vaidya as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Spportzvillage Foundation Vs Angels Education Society — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.222 OF 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SPORTZVILLAGE FOUNDATION (PRESENT ADDRESS) SPORTZVILLAGE, NO.36/2, GROUND FLOOR SOMASUNDARAPALYA NEAR MAHAVEER SEASON APARTMENT HSR LAYOUT, 2^ND SECTOR BENGALURU – 560 102. REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE EXECUTIVE MR. SRIKANTH H.R.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.PRASHANTH.B.K., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

ANGELS EDUCATION SOCIETY RUNNING LA SR.SEC.SCHOOL SECTOR 9, DELHI ROAD JHAJJAR HARYANA – 124 103.

¶11

…RESPONDENT (SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO 1) CONSTITUTE AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BY APPOINTING SUITABLE PERSON AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE DIFFERENCES, CLAIMS THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED: 28.03.2018 AND ETC.

¶12

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

¶13

²

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The present petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioner-SportzVillage Foundation against the respondentAngels Education Society, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in pursuance of Arbitration Clause of the Agreement dated 28.03.2018 vide Annexure-A.

¶16

Clause-9 of the said Agreement, which contains

¶17

an Arbitration clause, reads as under:-

¶18

“9 . ARBITRATION

¶19

In case of any dispute or difference shall arise between the Company and the Customer on any matter within the scope of the agreement, such dispute or differences shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Company at the time of the reference of the disputes to arbitration. Award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties. The procedure laid down in Indian Arbitration Act of 1996 and the rules made there under from time to time shall apply in the matter of the reference. Only courts at Bangalore shall have jurisdiction to entertain a claim or for enforcement of the award.”

¶20

³

¶21

3. The material on record discloses that since

¶22

disputes arose between the parties in relation to the aforesaid Agreement dated 28.03.2018 containing the aforesaid arbitration agreement at Clause No.9, on 08.04.2021, 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 its 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.

¶23

Subsequently, the parties have not only failed 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.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid facts and

¶25

circumstances, though several contentions have been

¶26

⁴

¶27

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 Sri.R.M. Vaidya, retired District Judge, 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.

¶28

6. In the result, I pass the following

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶31

(ii) Sri.R.M. Vaidya, retired District Judge,

¶32

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.

¶33

⁵

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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 Sri.R.M. Vaidya, retired District Judge, to the address available with the said Centre.

¶36

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

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Spportzvillage Foundation v. Angels Education Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Spportzvillage Foundation v. Angels Education Society

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 Ramesh G Vs the Official Liquidator of

Suresh Devadiga Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sri. S K Raghavendra Vs Sri. Ramachandra M

M/S Baddyzone Private Limited Vs Lecaprio

Spiegel Enterprises Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

A Kondaiah Vs the State of Karnataka