Allowed

Chetan P Tayal v. Mr Gangappa

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2023CMP/925/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a civil misc. petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute arising from an Agreement for Sale dated 14.07.2014.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. Prakash Kumar (Retd. District Judge) as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute under the agreed clause.

Chetan P Tayal Vs Mr Gangappa — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42417 CMP No. 925 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 925 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHETAN P. TAYAL S/O LATE NANDAKISHORE AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A NO.300, 3RD FLOOR GOLD TOWER NO.50 RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE - 560025 REP BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. RAKESH TAYAL S/O MR CHETAN P TAYAL

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. VAISHNAVI PUJARI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

MR. GANGAPPA S/O SAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶15

GANGAMMA W/O MR. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶16

BOTH RESIDING AT PUTTAPARTHY VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 561208

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI J.N.NAVEEN, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:42417 CMP No. 925 of 2022

¶21

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF ARBIRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION, APPOINT SOLE ARBITRATOR TO DETERMINE AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ACCORDANCE WITH ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 14.07.2014 AS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed for appointment of a sole Arbitrator relying upon the agreement for arbitration in the Agreement for Sale dated 14.07.2014 and the Arbitration Notice dated 27.10.2022.

¶25

Sri Naveen J N, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents, submits that the petition could be allowed leaving open all questions to be considered in the arbitral proceedings except insofar as the existence of the agreement for arbitration and the arbitrability of the dispute raised by the petitioner. At this stage, the learned counsels also submit that any retired District Judge could be

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:42417 CMP No. 925 of 2022

¶28

appointed as the sole Arbitrator. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

[a] The petition is allowed.

¶31

[b] Sri. Prakash Kumar, a retired District Judge, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to

¶32

enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Centre.

¶33

[c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order [even by E-mail] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru and also to Sri. Prakash Kumar, a retired District Judge, Address: No.207, "Mahaveer Ridge Apartments", Begur-Koppa Road,

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:42417 CMP No. 925 of 2022

¶35

¶36

Yelenahalli, Off-Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru - 560 114 [E-mail - [email protected]] as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief

¶37

Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶38

[d] The registry is directed to return the original documents, if any, filed along with the petition to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

AN/-

Chetan P Tayal v. Mr Gangappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan P Tayal v. Mr Gangappa

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. S M Kupendra Setty Vs the Income Tax Officer

Orange Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. Singapore Telecommunications Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri H K Pattabhiraman (Huf) Vs M/S Pariwar Housing Corporation

M/S Capital Construction Co. Vs Union of India

M/S Capital Construction Co. Vs Union of India