Allowed

Mr.Koshy P Koshy v. Mr.Ashvin K.T.Mathew

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2022CMP/61/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Civil Misc. Petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prayed for appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate on a dispute arising under a partnership deed. The Court held that the notice dated 11.10.2021 properly invoked the arbitration clause which contained no specific procedure for appointment. Therefore the Court appointed Sri. Rama Murthy as sole

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Sri. Rama Murthy appointed as sole arbitrator; Registry directed to forward copy to Director, Arbitration Centre.

Mr.Koshy P Koshy Vs Mr.Ashvin K.T.Mathew — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CMP No. 61 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 61 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. KOSHY P. KOSHY S/O TONY P. KOSHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS PARTNER LIFE BY DESIGN R/AT KOSHISH, KORREYA ROAD KOCHI, KERALA 682012

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ADINATHA NARDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR. ASHVIN K.T. MATHEW S/O MATHEW THOMAS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS PARTNER LIFE BY DESIGN R/AT NO. 35, 2^ND FLOOR ESSEL GARDENS, AVALAHALLI MAIN ROAD BILISHEVALE, BANGALORE URBAN KARNATAKA-560077

¶13

HAVING THE OFFICE AT LIFE BY DESIGN ARCHITECTS NO.412, 5^TH FLOOR, PEARL PLAZA KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD HRBR BLOCK 2, KALYAN NAGAR BANGALORE-560043

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SAHIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION AND APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO

¶17

¶18

CMP No. 61 of 2022

¶19

ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEREIN UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 27.10.2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-A WHICH CONTAINS THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CLAUSE NO.26.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

i. Allow the above petition and appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties herein under the partnership deed dated 27.10.2014 as per Annexure - A which contains the Arbitration Clause in the Clause no.26.

¶24

ii. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

The petitioner and the respondent are partners who had entered into a partnership deed dated 27.10.2014, which is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of Clause 26, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶26

“ 26. Any dispute arising between the partners shall be referred to arbitration and the arbitrator’s decision shall be binding on all the partners”.

¶27

There being certain disputes between the parties, initially a notice dated 18.08.2021 was issued to the

¶28

¶29

CMP No. 61 of 2022

¶30

respondent making a claim of certain amounts of money which was not paid. The respondent did not reply to the said notice. Subsequently, another notice dated 11.10.2021 had been issued nominating the arbitrator. Despite service of the same, the respondent not having consented to the appointment of an arbitrator or suggesting an alternate arbitrator, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶31

Upon service of notice on respondent, service was held sufficient. Today Sri.Sahil Kumar, counsel submits that he would be appearing for the respondent. He submits that the petitioner has not invoked the arbitration clause in a proper manner and procedure has not been followed and as such, the petition is required to be dismissed.

¶32

Having gone through the arbitration clause, what is required for the parties to refer the matter to an

¶33

¶34

CMP No. 61 of 2022

¶35

arbitration and the arbitration decision is binding. There is no particular procedure which has been prescribed under Clause 26 which is extracted hereinabove.

¶36

The invocation of the arbitration clause by way of a notice dated 11.10.2021 in my considered opinion is proper and correct. As such, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The petition is allowed.

¶39

ii. Sri.S Rama Murthy, a former District Judge of the District Judiciary, State of Karnataka is appointed as a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties under the aegis of the Arbitration Centre attached to this Court.

¶40

iii. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director, Arbitration Centre for doing the needful.

¶41

iv. All contentions are left open.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Prs*

¶44

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

Mr.Koshy P Koshy v. Mr.Ashvin K.T.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Koshy P Koshy v. Mr.Ashvin K.T.Mathew

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

Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mansh Kumar

M/S Bioplus Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri. Venkatesh Murthy R

M/S Bioplus Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Venkateshappa N C

Sri Shivashankar Agarwal Vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee

Sri Shivashankar Agarwal Vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee

Mr. Bk Srinivas Murthy Vs M/S Unishire Skycapes LLP