Partly allowed

Chabbras Associates v. the Superintending Engineer

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2022CMP/329/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, sought appointment of a private arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a road development work order. The court allowed the petition and appointed Justice B.A. Patil as the sole arbitrator, directing the Registry to communicate the order to the Arbitration Centre and the appointee.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's petition is allowed; Justice B.A. Patil is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator; the Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Arbitration Centre and the appointed arbitrator.

Chabbras Associates Vs the Superintending Engineer — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.329/2022

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

CHABBRAS ASSOCIATES OFFICE AT NO.11-1-776/14 CHILKALGUDA SECUNDERABAD -500 061 TELANGANA STATE (HEAD OFFICE) REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND G P A HOLDER (TECHNICAL) SRI K SATEESH

¶7

...PETITIONER (By SRI. MALLIKARJUN N.K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. SAMPATH. A., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND :

¶9

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER JNNURM MYSORE CITY CORPORATION NEXT TO BANUMAIAH COLLEGE SAYYAJI ROAD AGRAHARA CHAMPRAJPURA MYSORE - 570 024.

¶10

... RESPONDENT

¶11

(By Smt. GEETHA DEVI M. P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT THE SHRI. JUSTICE K.N.PANEENDRA, FORMER JUDGE OF THIS COURT TO ENTER APPEARANCE AS AN ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES AT BENGALURU ARBITRATION CENTRE, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU IN TERMS OF THE CLAUSE 24 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 29/04/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The undisputed facts are that the respondent has issued the work order for development of certain road and the work order is subject to the condition that if the petitioner - the contractor, is not satisfied with the respondent’s decision, the petitioner’s dispute shall be decided by arbitration. The petitioner, who has executed the work in terms of the work order, has issued a legal notice dated 28.08.2020 raising certain claim and he has also followed up with the other notice dated 09.11.202 for commencement of the arbitral

¶17

¶18

proceedings suggesting the name of an arbitrator. The respondent has not responded to either of the notices and significantly the respondent does not dispute the work order or the agreement for resolution by arbitration. Therefore, the following

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

[a] The petition is allowed;

¶21

[b] Justice B.A. Patil, a former Judge of this Court, House No.1327, 4^th Cross, 5^th main road, 5th block, HMT HBCS Layout, Nagasandra post, Bengaluru-60073, is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Arbitration and

¶22

¶23

Conciliation Centre (Domestic and

¶24

International), Bengaluru.

¶25

[c] The Registry is directed to

¶26

communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru and Justice B.A. Patil, a former Judge of this Court, House No.1327, 4^th Cross, 5^th Main Road, 5th Block, HMTHBCS Layout, Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru-560 073, as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

Chabbras Associates v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chabbras Associates v. the Superintending Engineer

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 T C Udaya Kumar Vs M/S Santhosh Shelters Pvt. Ltd.

Sapna Shetty Vs Sudhakara Shetty

Ms. Payal Sandhu Khurana Vs Alabama Design Consultants LLP

Dr Aruna Mohan Vs M/S Sm Visions

Sri B Rajendra Prasad @ Rajendra Reddy Vs Sri T K Sadashiva Reddy @

Smt Indira Ananthanarayana Vs Nil