Allowed

Mobileum Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Bioelectric Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2022CMP/356/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator after the respondent refused to participate in the appointment process for disputes arising from a lease deed. The Court appointed a retired district judge as the sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Shri M. Ramesh Rao as sole arbitrator; Registry to communicate order and return original lease deed.

Mobileum Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Bioelectric Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.356/2022

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MOBILEUM TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. NITESH RANJAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O SHRI A K SRIVASTAVA, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 7^TH FLOOR, SIGMA TECHNOLOGY STREET, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, POWAI, MUMBAI - 400 076.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SMT.HARSHITH N.B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

M/S BIOELECTRIC PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, REPRESENTED BY MR L. JAYARAMA, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT NO.7, 9^TH MAIN, JAYANAGR 2^ND BLOCK. BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT)

¶14

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND

¶15

¶16

CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO CONSTITUTE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES ARISING FROM AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEASE DEED EXECUTED ON 15/10/2020 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT HEREIN AT THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU STORED IN BOOK NO.1, DOCUMENT NO. 4782 AT PAGES 1-16.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner, who contends that it had obtained lease of the subject premise under the registered Lease Deed dated 15.10.2020 and has terminated the lease in accordance with the terms of such deed, has filed this petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has terminated the lease and called upon the respondent-landlord to refund the security deposit, but the respondent has contested the termination calling upon the petitioner to continue the lease. The

¶21

¶22

respondent has refused to return the security deposit, and the petitioner has issued legal notice dated 8.10.2021 for commencement of arbitration proceedings suggesting its nominee arbitrator. However, the respondent has again refused to arbitration denying the petitioner's right to terminate the lease and the claim for refund of security deposit.

¶23

These circumstances are borne out from the records, but the respondent, who is served on the last known address, has remained absent. The necessary ingredients are established. Therefore, the petition is favored and Shri M. Ramesh Rao, retired district Judge, Address: No.1193, Sri Ananda Nilayam, 10^th Cross, Ashoka Nagar, Bengaluru-560 050, 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 International), Bengaluru according to

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru, and Shri M. Ramesh Rao, retired district Judge, Address: No.1193, Sri Ananda Nilayam, 10^th Cross, Ashoka Naagar, Bengaluru-560 050, as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶27

The registry is directed to return the original lease deed to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

SA/-

Mobileum Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Bioelectric Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mobileum Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Bioelectric 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

Dr Aruna Mohan Vs M/S Sm Visions

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

Chabbras Associates Vs the Superintending Engineer

M. R. Krishnappa Vs Sri.a J Jassawala

Smt B Ramamani Vs Sri M Paparaju

The Hassan District Co-Operative Vs the Joint Registrar