Dismissed

Guardian Healthcare Services Private Limited v. Counfreedise Retail Services Limited

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2023CMP/866/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Misc. Petition filed under Section 11(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator. The court observed the petitioner failed to suggest a candidate in the notice, which is mandatory under Section 11(5), and disposed of the petition with liberty to file a fresh one.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as the notice did not comply with the requirement to suggest a candidate for appointment.

Guardian Healthcare Services Private Limited Vs Counfreedise… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43365 CMP No. 866 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 866 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GUARDIAN HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BRADY HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR 12/14 VEER NARIMAN ROAD FORT, MUMBAI CITY MAHARASHTRA-400001 REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MANISH GANDHI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

COUNFREEDISE RETAIL SERVICES LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.14, 2ND FLOOR NEW TIMBER YARD LAYOUT MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560026

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:43365 CMP No. 866 of 2022

¶17

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(4) (B) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN IMPARTIAL AND INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES, ARISISNG OUT OF THE CLAUSE 10 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 29.05.2019.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has filed this petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator relying upon Clause 10 of the agreement which the petitioner contends is electronically generated upon acceptance of the respondent’s offer. This agreement for arbitration reads as under:

¶21

“ All disputes and differences between the parties hereto regarding the construction or interpretation of any of the terms and conditions herein contained or touching these presents or determination of any liability shall be referred to Arbitration under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any other statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force. Both the parties shall agree upon appoint of a sole Arbitrator whose decision shall be final and binding on the Parties. The language of

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43365 CMP No. 866 of 2022

¶23

the arbitration shall be English. The parties shall bear and pay their respective costs, charges and expenses of the arbitration proceedings.”

¶24

The petitioner has issued the arbitration notice on 14.12.2022 but without suggesting the name of a person who could enter reference of the dispute inviting the respondent’s acceptance thereof. On this short ground, in view of the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 [for short, ‘ the Arbitration Act’ ], the petition must be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to take necessary action as would be necessary for the purposes of Section 11(5) of the Arbitration Act and file a fresh petition, if there is occasion for the same.

¶25

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

SD/JUDGE

¶27

Guardian Healthcare Services Private Limited v. Counfreedise Retail Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guardian Healthcare Services Private Limited v. Counfreedise Retail Services 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

Smt Malathi a S Vs Mr H K Nagaraju

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

Sri Mohammed Kaleem Vs M/S Maxworth Realty India Limited

Yeshodamma Vs the Regional Transport Authority(Rural)

M/S. Sukavaan and Kunal Vs M/S. Cultfit Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Y C Manohara Vs the State of Karnataka