Allowed

U Rajesh Karanth v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2023CMP/84/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator despite a prior order potentially affecting such appointments, after receiving an uncontroverted notice not replied to by respondents.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri A.K.Mulla as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute through the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru.

U Rajesh Karanth Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37739 CMP No. 84 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 84 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

U RAJESH KARANTH S/O NARASIMHA KARANTH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT ANANTHA NILAYA, UPPINAKUDURU VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 576102.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., PUSHPA BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI 576102. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶14

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. H.O THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING, IT-7, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, FORT MUMBAI 110001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH PANDIT T., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:37739 CMP No. 84 of 2022

¶20

ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR PREFERABLY THROUGH THE ARBITRATION CENTRE AT BENGALURU TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS AS PER THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE MENTIONED IN THE INSURANCE POLICY DATED 15/03/2012, WHICH IS AT ANNEXUREA.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner seeks appointment of a sole Arbitrator to resolve his dispute with the

¶24

respondents. The petitioner’s case is that he has commenced suit in O.S.No.43/2013 on the file of the

¶25

Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura for adjudication of the quantum of money paid by the respondents under the subject policy; that the respondents have contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the parties must be referred to arbitration as contemplated under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:37739 CMP No. 84 of 2022

¶28

It is seen that the concerned civil Court has favoured this application not only referring the petitioner and the respondents to arbitration but also appointing an Arbitrator. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the civil Court’s order referring the dispute to arbitration and appointing a sole arbitrator, has preferred petitions in W.P.No.17490/2015 and W.P.No.24081/2015. This Court by order dated 01.07.2019 has disposed of these writ petitions observing that the civil Court’s order referring the parties to the arbitration is sustained but the order appointing the sole arbitrator is quashed.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon these circumstances, submits that after this Court’s order in the aforesaid writ petitions, the legal notice is issued on 09.12.2019 invoking the agreement for arbitration but the respondents have not caused any reply. The petitioner’s case remains

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:37739 CMP No. 84 of 2022

¶32

un-controverted and as such, the petition must be favoured. Hence, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

[a] The petition is allowed;

¶35

[b] Sri. A.K.Mulla, a retired District

¶36

Judge, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between

¶37

the petitioner and the respondents and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration

¶38

and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Centre.

¶39

[c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order [by E-mail] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru, and Sri. A.K.Mulla, a retired District Judge, Address: CTS No.10230/A & B, 5^th

¶40

Lane, Shivaji Nagar, Belagavi – 590016 [E-

¶41

mail - [email protected]], as

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:37739 CMP No. 84 of 2022

¶44

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

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

U Rajesh Karanth v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U Rajesh Karanth v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

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

Sri B S Bhadrinath Vs Sri B S Ashwathnarayana Rao

M/S Tenon Facility Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs G Vanitha

Mr Kishore Dattatreya Pai Vs Expat Greens Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Vs Mr. Adithya Rathi

S.G..Umamaheshwari Vs the Additional Commissioner and

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Regional Transport Authority