Allowed

The Archbishop of Bangalore, v. Mr Harishchandra Shetty

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2023CMP/111/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka appointed an arbitrator in a civil miscellaneous petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from a lease deed and sub-lease between the petitioner and respondents.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Srinivase Gowda as the Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties.

The Archbishop of Bangalore, Vs Mr Harishchandra Shetty — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:25552 CMP No. 111 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 111 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE ARCHBISHOP OF BANGALORE, PRESENTLY DR. PETER MACHADO, ARCHBISHOP'S HOUSE, NO.75, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 046, REPRESENTED BY ITS PA HOLDER, FR. THERESA BABU.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. D PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR. HARISHCHANDRA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O LATE BABU SHETTY, NO.8/A, 'CHANDRAKIRAN', 24TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶14

M/S. TRUSTWELL HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, NO. 5, J. C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS CMD, DR. MADHUSUDHAN H. V,

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M. R. PARVEEZ AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:25552 CMP No. 111 of 2023

¶19

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING A. APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE PENDING BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (XVII) OF THE LEASE DEED DATED: 05/04/2004 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.1 AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶23

The petitioner being the owner of the scheduled premises, entered into a lease deed with the respondent No.1 under registered lease deed dated 05.04.2004, which has been produced in the original, at Annexure-A. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent No.2 is the sub-lessee under respondent No.1. The petitioner appears to have terminated the lease and thereafter, approached the City Civil Court, Bengaluru in O.S No. 8626/2019 seeking injunction on the respondent and for payment of arrears of rent/damages.

¶24

During course of the proceedings before the City Civil Court, respondent No.1 herein filed an application under Section 8(1)

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25552 CMP No. 111 of 2023

¶26

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stating that since there is an arbitration clause contained in the lease deed, the suit is not maintainable. The said application was allowed by the City Civil Court by order dated 05.08.2022 while disposing of the suit in view of the arbitration clause contained in the lease deed.

¶27

Thereafter, a notice dated 18.08.2022 was caused by the petitioner to the respondents, invoking the arbitration clause and nominating a former Supreme Court Judge as an Arbitrator and the respondents were called upon to accept the nomination and come forward for arbitration.

¶28

Respondent No.3 herein caused reply dated 30.09.2022 admitting the fact that respondent No.1 has sublet the premises to respondent No.2 on 27.04.2018. However, respondent No.2 did not accept the invocation of the arbitration clause by the petitioner and consequently, this civil miscellaneous petition is filed.

¶29

There is no representation for the respondent No.1. However, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 clearly

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25552 CMP No. 111 of 2023

¶31

submits that since there is an arbitration clause contained in the lease deed, the dispute is required to be resolved through arbitration.

¶32

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following order:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(a) The petition is allowed appointing Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shri. B. Srinivase Gowda, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka as the Arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct proceeding at Bengaluru according to the rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru.

¶35

(b) All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings.

¶36

(c) The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru and to Hon'ble Mr. Justice

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:25552 CMP No. 111 of 2023

¶39

Shri. B. Srinivase Gowda, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

DSP CT: BHK

The Archbishop of Bangalore, v. Mr Harishchandra Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Archbishop of Bangalore, v. Mr Harishchandra Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahadeva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Naveen Bangalore Indusekharan Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. J. Shivalinge Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vibha v Kamath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.H.Ramaiah Vs the Commissioner

Sri.St Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka