Allowed

Dr Sanjay Rao v. Kazo Fashion Limtied

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2023CMP/238/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate lease disputes between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Smt. K.A. Lalitha, Retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties.

Dr Sanjay Rao Vs Kazo Fashion Limtied — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23897 CMP No. 238 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 238 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR SANJAY RAO S/O LATE KUDPI JAYARAM RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT B/76 DIAMOND DISTRICT KODIHALLI OLD AIRPORT ROAD BENGALURU - 560 008

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.A MURALI & SMT.ASHWINI K., ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

KAZO FASHION LIMTIED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT W-39, GREATER KAILASH PART II NEW DELHI 110 048 REP. BY RETAIL HEAD

¶14

… RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING FOR APPOINTMENT OF SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE AND DECIDE THE DISPUTES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT TO RESOLVE THE PRESENT DISPUTE AND ALL MATTERS CONCERNING THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:23897 CMP No. 238 of 2021

¶16

PER CLAUSE 25.3 OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT (DOCUMENT NO.1) DATED 25/07/2014 ETC., THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶19

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of Clause 25.3 of the Lease Agreement dated 25.07.2014.

¶20

The petitioner is the Lessor who leased the schedule property in favour of the respondent under a registered deed of lease dated 25.7.2014. Learned counsel submits that in terms of the lease deed, the lease was granted to the respondent for a period of nine years. The petitioner got issued a notice dated 14.7.2020 calling upon the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.29,61,670/which was due to be paid by the respondent. A reply was issued by the respondent on 30.7.2020 denying the claim

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23897 CMP No. 238 of 2021

¶22

made by the petitioner. On the other hand, it was stated in the reply notice that the petitioner is due to pay a sum of Rs.3,87,915/- to the respondent and the same shall be adjusted. Thereafter, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 19.3.2021 invoking the arbitration clause contained in Clause 25.3 of the Deed of Lease and nominated a learned counsel as an arbitrator and called upon the respondent to come forward for arbitration. The respondent caused a reply dated 6.4.2021 rejecting the nomination made by the petitioner and nominated some other learned counsel to arbitrate the matter.

¶23

Though notice is served on the respondent, it has remained unrepresented.

¶24

This Court has gone through the petition papers

¶25

and finds that the Deed of Lease dated 25.7.2014 is a registered instrument. The petitioner has fulfilled all the requirement of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following order:

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:23897 CMP No. 238 of 2021

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(a) The petition is allowed appointing Smt. K.A. Lalitha, Retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

¶30

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

¶31

(c) The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and to Smt. K.A. Lalitha, Retired District Judge, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Dr Sanjay Rao v. Kazo Fashion Limtied

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Sanjay Rao v. Kazo Fashion Limtied

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

Stree Samaja Middle School Vs the State of Karnataka

Seshadripuram Law College Vs the State of Karnataka

Seshadripuram Public School Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Balaji .a Vs the Chief Commissioner

J K Technosoft Limited Vs Unikul Solutions Private Limited

Mrs. Shambhavi Shetty Vs Mrs. Rita Barboza