Allowed

Nebula Technologies v. Treistek Technologies LLP

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2022CMP/381/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court of Karnataka appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve a contractual dispute between the petitioner and respondent after the respondent failed to respond.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. R.M. Vaidya as Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

Nebula Technologies Vs Treistek Technologies LLP — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.381 OF 2021

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

NEBULA TECHNOLOGIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, M.R.GEETHA, AGE 50 YEARS #966, 18^TH B CROSS, 2^ND MAIN IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. GAUTHAM NETTAR., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

TREISTEK TECHNOLOGIES LLP REP. BY ARINDAN SENGUPTA AGE MAJOR J S ESTATE NO.201 6^TH MAIN 3^RD FLOOR, HOYSALA NAGAR RAMAMRUTHY NAGAR BANGALORE -560 016.

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI.SATHEESH KUMAR.V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR OR SUCH OTHER PERSON AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND REFER THE DISPUTES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ADJUDICATION TO THE SAID PERSON BY WAY OF ARBITRATION IN TERMS OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE (35) OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11/04/2017 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶14

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

¶15

²

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioner-Nebula Technologies against the respondentTreistek Technologies LLP, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in pursuance of Arbitration Clause of the Agreement dated 11.04.2017 vide Annexure-A.

¶18

Clause-35 of the said Agreement, which contains

¶19

an Arbitration clause, reads as under:-

¶20

“35 . ARBITRATION

¶21

35.1 Any dispute arising under this Agreement or any matter incidental thereto, shall be submitted for arbitration as per the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

¶22

3. The material on record discloses that since

¶23

disputes arose between the parties in relation to the aforesaid Agreement dated 11.04.2017 containing the aforesaid arbitration agreement at Clause No.35, on 09.11.2020, the petitioner invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause and issued a notice to the respondent putting forth various claims and contentions and nominating and

¶24

³

¶25

appointing a sole arbitrator and calling upon the respondents to give their 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.

¶26

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.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid facts and

¶28

circumstances, though several contentions have been 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

¶29

Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties under

¶30

⁴

¶31

the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as per the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International) at Bengaluru.

¶32

In the result, I pass the following

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

(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.

¶38

(iv) A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre

¶39

⁵

¶40

(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.

¶41

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

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Bmc/-

Nebula Technologies v. Treistek Technologies LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nebula Technologies v. Treistek Technologies 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

Dilip Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Varsha D Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.Nivedeetha K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mohith R S Vs the Principal

Suresh Kumar Kothari Vs the Income Tax Officer

Sri a Rajendran Vs Karnataka State Law University