Allowed

Mr. Bruno D Costa v. the Parish Priest

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2024CMP/257/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes under a construction agreement containing an arbitration clause. Counsel jointly suggested a retired District Judge as arbitrator. Petition allowed and a retired District Judge appointed.

What did the court decide?

Sri S.Y. Kumbar, retired District Judge appointed as arbitrator; Registry directed to forward copy of order; original construction agreement returned to petitioner.

Mr. Bruno D Costa Vs the Parish Priest — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32773 CMP No. 257 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 257 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. BRUNO D’ COSTA, S/O JOSEPH D’ COSTA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT VARTHEGUNDI,, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577134.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B VEENA KUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE PARISH PRIEST, SR JOSEPH’S CHURCH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BASKAL VILLAGE, CHIKKAMGALURU DISTRICT – 577134.

¶13

RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. H.N. MANJUNATH PRASAD.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE ABOVE CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11(10), OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED 10.02.2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO SORT OUT THE DIFFERENCES AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE AWARD AND ETC,.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:32773 CMP No. 257 of 2024

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Article 12 of the Construction Agreement dated 10.02.2021 to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent.

¶21

Brief facts leading raise to filing of this petition are as under the petitioner is clause 4 contractor and the respondent is Parish Priest of St. Josephs Church situated at Baskal Village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk. Thereafter, they entered into an agreement by specifying certain terms and conditions to comply with the petitioner and respondent on 10.02.2021. Further on 12.08.2023 the respondent told the petitioner that the remaining construction work will be completed by the church i.e., the respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an order of Temporary Injunction by way of interim measure by restraining the respondent from continuing

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32773 CMP No. 257 of 2024

¶23

the remaining construction work in the schedule property that is church building being construction in Sy.No.96 of Baskal Village, Vasthare Hobli, Chikkamangaluru Taluk. The petitioner has filed an interlocutory application seeking order of Temporary Injunction. Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamangaluru allowed the interlocutory application.,

¶24

Further it is contended that the construction agreement entered in between the petitioner and the respondent provides that any dispute arises between them regarding the work, they shall first attempt to settle the dispute through mutual and amicable consultation and if the consensus is not reached, the matter will be referred to arbitration by a sole arbitrator not below the rank of retired superintendent engineer, PWD to be appointed by the respondent. The Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru dismissed the application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal in MFA.No.802/2024 before this Court, this Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 dismissed the appeal.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:32773 CMP No. 257 of 2024

¶27

Further recorded its finding that the petitioner has

¶28

not taken any steps for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate dispute and as also not taken steps for drawing up of any inventory of the work already done. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this application for appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records and considered the submissions.

¶30

Admittedly, there is a construction agreement dated 10.02.2021 executed between the petitioner and the respondent and now the dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the respondent and there is an Arbitration clause exist in the construction agreement. Both the learned counsel submit that any retired District Judge may be appointed as an Arbitrator. Their submission is placed on record

¶31

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pas the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) The petition is allowed .

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32773 CMP No. 257 of 2024

¶35

ii) Sri. S.Y. * Kumbar retired District Judge is appointed as an Arbitrator;

¶36

iii) Registry is directed to forward the copy of this order to the learned retired District Judge and Arbitration and Conciliation Center, * Chikkamagaluru ;

¶37

iv) Office is directed to return the original construction agreement after retaining photo copy of the same to the petitioner.

¶38

Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶39

** * Corrected vide Court Order dated 3.12.2024

¶40

PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Mr. Bruno D Costa v. the Parish Priest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Bruno D Costa v. the Parish Priest

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 M Ravi Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Sanjay Reddy Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Babulal L Vs the Chief Commissioner Bbmp

S H Akash Vs the Commissioner

Arvind R Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Kempakka Vs Gangaiah