Allowed

Shreeji Interiors v. Provident Housing Limited

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2022CMP/365/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, upon the unanimous submission that parties could not appoint an umpire but desired arbitration by a sole arbitrator, exercised its power under Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration Act to appoint a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. Moosa Kunhi Nayarmoole as Sole Arbitrator; direction to Registry to communicate order.

Shreeji Interiors Vs Provident Housing Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 365/2022

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

SHREEJI INTERIORS A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT "SHREEJI HOUSE", NO.410/381/290 SIDDAPPA LAYOUT, MADIWALA POST BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 068 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL HARILAL PIPALAYA

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. B.N. GAURI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. GURU PRASANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

PROVIDENT HOUSING LIMITED NO.8, ULSOOR ROAD BENGALURU-560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6-A) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 R/W CLAUSE 2 OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME, 1996, PRAYING TO EXERCISE THE POWER UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,

¶14

¶15

1996 AND APPOINT A RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE AS SOLE ARBITRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH WORK ORDER DATED:06.11.2019 ATTACHED HEREIN AS "ANNEXURE-B" AND AMENDED WORK ORDER DATED:29.07.2020 ATTACHED HERIN AS "ANNEXURE-F" TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES INVOLVED THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER COMPANY AND THE RESPONDENTS AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The learned counsels for the parties are

¶19

unanimous in their submission that the dispute inter se arises out of the Work Order dated 06.11.2019 (Annexure-B) issued by the respondent to the petitioner. They also submit that legal notices have been exchanged for constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal as contemplated under the arbitration agreement. However, the nominee Arbitrators have not been able to appoint an umpire Arbitrator notwithstanding the arbitration clause and the legal notices exchanged. But the parties are willing for arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru. They further submit that

¶20

¶21

a retired District Judge could be appointed as a Sole Arbitrator.

¶22

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that a retired District Judge must be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute. Hence, the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

[a] The petition is allowed;

¶25

[b] Sri. Moosa Kunhi Nayarmoole, retired District Judge and retired Judicial Member, K.S.A.T, Address: Nayarmoole Post, Manila Village, Bantwal Taluk, Vittal, Dakshina Kannada District – 574 243, is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and

¶26

respondent and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

(Domestic and International), Bengaluru.

¶30

[c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru and Sri. Moosa Kunhi Nayarmoole, retired District Judge and retired Judicial Member, K.S.A.T, Address: Nayarmoole Post, Manila Village, Bantwal Taluk, Vittal, Dakshina Kannada District – 574 243 as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Shreeji Interiors v. Provident Housing Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreeji Interiors v. Provident Housing Limited

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. M.M. Mahadev Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. S. Premalatha Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Op Societies

Rajendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghuveer M Shenoy Vs the State Co-Operative Election Commission

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Thondamanati Rusheeswar Reddy

Smt Tejaswini S D Vs P Premakumar