Allowed

Gilbert Sunil Pinto v. Smt. Akshatha Shekhar

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2022CMP/487/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Karnataka appointed Hon'ble Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri as sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute between the parties based on an arbitration clause in their Memorandum of Understanding, allowing the petition without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri, Former Judge, as sole arbitrator pending final resolution of the dispute.

Gilbert Sunil Pinto Vs Smt. Akshatha Shekhar — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.487 OF 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

GILBERT SUNIL PINTO S/O JOHN PINTO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A BANYAN TREE APARTMENT, CG 07 KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA VARTHUR HOBLI, MARATHAHALLI ORR BENGALURU-560037. (BY SRI.BEENA P K., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

SMT. AKSHATHA SHEKHAR SOLE PROPRIETOR M/S CHANDRA SHEKAR INDANE DISTRIBUTORS HAVING REGD OFFICE AT NO.167/168, KADRENAHALLI NEW COLONY, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560070.

¶9

ALSO RESIDING AT FLAT NO.E-104, ND SEPAL APARTMENTS SOMASUNDARAPALYA 2^ND SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102.

¶10

SRI B N THAMAN APPACHOO BANYAN TREE APARTMENT BG-02, KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA, MARATHAHALLI ORR BENGALURU-560103.

¶11

RESIDING AT BANYAN APARTMENT BS07 KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA MARATHAHALLI ORR BENGALURU - 560 103.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 02.03.2022 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 HELD SUFFICIENT; R2 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶13

²

¶14

THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO a) APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ARBITRATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE 9.8.1 OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 04.01.2018 AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 15.05.2019 ANNEXURE-B AND C; b) AWARD THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO THE PETITIONER.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in pursuance of Arbitration Clause of the revised Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.05.2019 vide Annexure-C.

¶18

Clause-9.8.1 of the said Memorandum of Understanding, which contains an Arbitration clause, reads as under:-

¶19

“ 9.8.1 The parties shall endeavour to settle by mutual discussions, any claim, dispute or controversy arising out of or in relation to this MOU. All disputes arising out of the terms of this MOU shall, failing amicable settlement be resolved through arbitration as per the Arbitration and

¶20

³

¶21

Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration shall be held in Bangalore, India, and the award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. Each Party shall equally bear the cost of Arbitration. This MOU shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of India and subject to the provisions hereof, the competent courts at Bangalore, India, shall have non-exclusive jurisdiction over all matters in connection herewith."

¶22

The material on record discloses that since disputes arose between the parties in relation to the aforesaid MOU dated 15.05.2019 containing the aforesaid arbitration agreement at Clause No.9.8.1, on 10.08.2021, the petitioner invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause and issued a notice to the respondents putting forth various claims and contentions and nominating and 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.

¶23

⁴

¶24

4. Subsequently, the parties have not only failed

¶25

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.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid facts and

¶27

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 Hon’ble Sri. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri, Former Judge of this Court , to act as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as per the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International) at Bengaluru.

¶28

⁵

¶29

6. In the result, I pass the following

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶32

(ii) Hon’ble Sri. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri,

¶33

Former Judge of this Court is 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.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(iv) A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further and also to Hon’ble Sri. Justice Ashok B.

¶36

⁶

¶37

Hinchigeri, Former Judge of this Court, to the address available with the said Centre.

¶38

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

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

AN/-

Gilbert Sunil Pinto v. Smt. Akshatha Shekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gilbert Sunil Pinto v. Smt. Akshatha Shekhar

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

Bhuvan College of Nursing Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Flywell Aviations Pvt. Ltd. Vs U R Rao Satellite Centre

Nirmala R M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rangaprasad Vs the National Faceless Assessment Centre

M/S. V.K. Building Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Nitesh Housing

M/S. Navinchandra Kalyanji and Co. Vs Union of India