Allowed

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

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2022CMP/306/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the High Court at Bengaluru allowed the petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The Court held that while the respondent's contentions regarding the lapsed agreement and non-performance must be adjudicated by the arbitrator, the dispute is arbitrable, leading to the appointment of a sole arbi

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. H.M. Nanjundaswamy as sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute under the Bangalore Arbitration Centre.

Sri Pattad T Venkatesh Vs M/s. Kamalya Builders and Developers… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CMP No. 306 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 CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 306 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. PATTAD T. VENKATESH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.742/60A CHAMUNDESHWARI NILAYA, CHIMNI HILLS, NAVY LAYOUT HESARAGHATTA MAIN BANGALORE-560090

¶9

SRI. G.D. LAKSHMI NARAYANA S/O LATE DODDA HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.126, PLATINUM CITY “O” BLOCK 2^ND PHASE, HMT MAIN ROAD PEENYA, BANGALORE-560022 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S. KAMALYA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.342 THE EMBASSY-15, ALI ASKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560052 REP BY ITS PARTNER MR. UDIT KUMAR

¶13

AND ALSO AT NO.15/A, SSV COMPLEX RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT YESHAVANTHAPURA BANGALORE-560022 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

CMP No. 306 of 2021

¶16

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE EXISTING DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEREIN IN TERMS OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 14.12.2018.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

a. Appoint an arbitrator to resolve the existing dispute between the parties herein in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the memorandum of understanding dated 14.12.2018.

¶21

b. And grant such other and further reliefs in the end of justice.

¶22

The petitioner and the respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.12.2018. Said agreement is governed by an arbitration clause, in terms of Clause 24 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶23

“24. If any dispute arises between the parties same shall be decided by the arbitrator under the provisions of arbitration and conciliation Act.”

¶24

¶25

CMP No. 306 of 2021

¶26

There being certain disputes between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and nominated its arbitrator vide legal notice dated 11.12.2019. Upon service of the same, the respondent replied by his reply dated 24.12.2019 contending that the agreement had lapsed, the amount which has been claimed by the petitioner is not proper, those amounts are not due and it is further contended that the petitioner has not discharged its obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding etc. and that for those reasons, the respondent stated that it was unable to accept the request for arbitration. In that background, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶27

Notice having been served, the respondent has entered appearance and filed objections reiterating the very same contentions raised in his reply notice.

¶28

¶29

CMP No. 306 of 2021

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that for those reasons the petition may be dismissed.

¶31

The execution of the Memorandum of Understanding and existence of the arbitration clause is not in dispute. The only dispute which has been raised by the respondent is as regards the petitioner allegedly not having performed its obligation and further that the respondent does not owe the amounts claimed by the petitioner.

¶32

The said allegations are repeated in several paragraphs of the objections. I am of the considered opinion that those contentions would be required to be adjudicated by the arbitrator appointed after trial and cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings.

¶33

In view thereof, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The petition is allowed;

¶36

¶37

CMP No. 306 of 2021

¶38

ii. Sri.H.M.Nanjundaswamy, former District Judge is appointed as a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

v. All contentions are left open.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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 T Gopala Reddy Vs M/S Elv Builders

Sri Anjaneyaswamy Transport Vs Podar International School

Sri K Raghava Reddy Vs Bengaluru Development Authority