Allowed

Sri Mohammed Kaleem v. M/S Maxworth Realty India Limited

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2023CMP/411/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous petition, the Karnataka High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after the petitioner demonstrated the respondent's failure to nominate an arbitrator as per their booking agreement.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri Prakash Kumar, retired District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to conduct proceedings under the relevant Centre Rules.

Sri Mohammed Kaleem Vs M/S Maxworth Realty India Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42987 CMP No. 411 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 411 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MOHAMMED KALEEM S/O M.I.DAFEEDAR, AGED 43YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.24, 21^st B CROSS, PRAGATHI LAYOUT, DODDANAKUNDI, BENGALURU 560 037.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S MAXWORTH REALTY INDIA LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KMP HOUSE, 12/2, YAMUNA BAI ROAD, MADHAVNAGAR, BENGALURU 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. KESAVA KOLAR.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI.M. VINAY KEERTHY., ADVOCATE AND SMT/ SHRUTHI S.P, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:42987 CMP No. 411 of 2022

¶17

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) AND (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR IN RELATION TO THE CONTRACT DATED 02/06/2013 AND 28.062016 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A & B RESPECTIVERLY.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed for the appointment of a sole arbitrator relying upon the agreement for arbitration as contained in the Booking Forms dated 22.06.2013 and 28.06.2013, and the agreement for arbitration reads as follows:

¶21

“In case of any dispute, differences either as to the right, duties and liabilities of the parties or as to the entitlement of the parties, the same shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be appointed by M/s Maxworth Realty India Limited and the jurisdiction will be Bangalore in case of disputes.”

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42987 CMP No. 411 of 2022

¶23

The petitioner contends that the respondent has not refunded the amount paid for booking a plot notwithstanding the repeated requests. The petitioner has issued notice dated 10.02.2020 raising a claim for certain amount and also calling upon the respondent to nominate the sole arbitrator in terms of the agreement for arbitration. The respondent has not issued any reply to this notice.

¶24

When queried, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the agreement for arbitration, the petitioner has called upon the respondent to nominate a sole arbitrator and because the respondent has not nominated such arbitrator, this Court must construe that there is failure of consensus as contemplated under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short, the ‘ Arbitration and Conciliation Act ’]. This submission, in the peculiarities of this case, must be accepted, and hence, the following

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:42987 CMP No. 411 of 2022

¶27

ORDER

¶28

[a] The petition is allowed;

¶29

[b] Sri Prakash Kumar, retired District Judge, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Centre.

¶30

[c] The Registry is directed to

¶31

communicate this order [by Email] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru, and Sri Prakash Kumar, retired District Judge, Address: No.207, “Mahaveer Ridge Apartments”, Begur - Koppa Road, Yelenahalli, Off - Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 114 [Email:

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42987 CMP No. 411 of 2022

¶33

[email protected]], as required under the Appointment of

¶34

Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Sri Mohammed Kaleem v. M/S Maxworth Realty India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Kaleem v. M/S Maxworth Realty India Limited

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

Mr Sharanesh K S N Vs M/S Ryan Foods LLP

Madhu Bagroy Vs Adarsh Palm Retreat Gulmohar Residents Apartments Welfare Association

R.S. Rock Sand Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Smt Malathi a S Vs Mr H K Nagaraju

Sri. S.V. Somashekar Vs Sri. S. Ramachandran

Sri. Mohammed Samiulla Vs Sri. Syed Imran