Allowed

M/S Laskmi Venkteshwara Constructions v. Union of India

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2022CMP/422/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil miscellaneous petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 for appointing a sole arbitrator. The court allowed the petition and appointed Sri. B. Shivalinge Gowda as sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents under the South Western Railway.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. B. Shivalinge Gowda as the sole arbitrator to conduct the reference of the dispute.

M/S Laskmi Venkteshwara Constructions Vs Union of India — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 422 OF 2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S LASKMI VENKTESHWARA CONSTRUCTIONS DOOR NO. 1-235-9 VAJRALAPETA NEAR ADCC BANK PENUKONDA (T) ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH STATE REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI C VENKATESHWARA RAO

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SAMPATH BAPAT, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

UNION OF INDIA

¶11

REP BY THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY GM OFFICE BUILDING

¶12

GADAG ROAD HUBBALLI - 580 021

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (WORKS) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY DIVISIONAL OFFICE WORKS BRANCH BENGALURU - 560 023

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/SOUTH SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY

¶15

DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WORKS BRANCH

¶16

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 023

¶18

THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/NORTH SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY DIVISIONAL OFFICE WORKS BRANCH BENGALURU - 560 023

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VENKATANARAYANA B S., ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF AGREEMENT BEARING NO. 35/SBC/19 DATED 22/02/2019, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Sri. Sampath Bapat and Sri. B.S.Venkatanarayana,

¶25

the learned counsels for the parties, are heard. The learned counsels do not dispute the existence of arbitration agreement or the existence of aribtrable dispute. However, the question for consideration is whether the respondents' communication could be construed as effective for the purposes of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It cannot be gainsaid that it would not be because firstly, it is not communicated to the petitioner and

¶26

¶27

secondly, because it had to be communicated within the prescribed time. In these circumstances, sole arbitrator must be appointed to enter reference of the dispute. Hence, the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

[a] The petition is allowed;

¶30

[b] Sri. B. Shivalinge Gowda, a retired District Judge, No.138, ‘Belaku’, 2^nd main, Judicial Layout, Thalaghattapura, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru – 560 109., is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru.

¶31

[c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order [by E-mail] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International),

¶32

¶33

Bengaluru and also to Sri. B. Shivalinge Gowda, a retired District Judge, as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

M/S Laskmi Venkteshwara Constructions v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Laskmi Venkteshwara Constructions v. Union of India

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 Mithun a S Vs Digantha Mudrana Ltd.

Mr Irudayasamy Christopher Vs Fujitsu Solutions India Private Ltd.

Sri Shantha Kumar Vs Mohammed Israr

Smt Manjula Vs Sri G. Muniraju

M/S M v v Satyanarayana Vs Union of India

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Narasimhulu T