Allowed

M/S. N D Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri. Rangappa

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2024CMP/274/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11 petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Clause 40 of a Joint Development Agreement. The respondent did not reply or appear, and did not dispute the arbitration clause. The court allowed the petition and appointed Ashok B Hinchigeri, former judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Hon'ble Shri Ashok B Hinchigeri, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, appointed sole arbitrator per Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru rules.

M/S. N D Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri. Rangappa — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:3249 CMP No. 274 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.274 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. N D PROPERTIES PVT LTD A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.398, 2^ND FLOOR, 7^TH CROSS, MICO LAYOUT BTM 2^ND STAGE, REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M.K.K. DURANI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR M.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. RANGAPPA S/O CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT BABASAHEBARAPALYA, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 060.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) (a) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE EXISTING DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEREIN IN THE TERMS OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN THE JDA DATED: 24.04.2008.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:3249 CMP No. 274 of 2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Agreement contained at Clause No.40 in the Joint Development Agreement dated 24.04.2008 entered into between the parties.

¶22

Clause No.40 of the Joint Development Agreement dated

¶23

24.04.2008, which is an Arbitration Agreement reads as under:-

¶24

“ In the event of any dispute or differences between the parties herein, the same shall be settled amicably through mutual discussions and conciliations, after giving due notices to the addresses given herein above by Registered Post A.D. In spite of the aforesaid if it is not possible to reach a solution in respect of mutual rights and obligations, such dispute / difference shall be referred to arbitration to a Govt. Arbitrator, as per the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliations Act, 1996, the venue of such arbitration shall be at Bangalore. The decision of the arbitrators shall be final and binding on both the parties.”

¶25

The material on record discloses that since disputes

¶26

arose between the parties in relation to the aforesaid Agreement containing the aforesaid arbitration agreement / clause, the petitioner invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause and issued a

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:3249 CMP No. 274 of 2022

¶29

notice dated 24.06.2021 to the respondent putting forth various claims and contentions and nominating and appointing a sole arbitrator and calling upon the respondent to give his concurrence / consent to refer the dispute to arbitration.

¶30

The respondent has not sent any reply nor has he disputed the existence of arbitration agreement / clause in the contracts entered into between the parties. Subsequently, the parties have not only failed to resolve their disputes but they have also not reached any consensus / agreement for appointment of an arbitrator and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. Even in the present petition, respondent has not entered appearance and has chosen to remain unrepresented and do not dispute or deny the existence of arbitration agreement / clause in the contracts entered into between the parties.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the undisputed fact that there exists an arbitration agreement / clause in the contracts entered into between the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:3249 CMP No. 274 of 2022

¶34

just and appropriate to allow this petition by referring the dispute between the parties to arbitration with the consent of both sides by appointing Hon’ble Shri. Ashok B Hinchigeri, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, to act as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as per the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International) at Bengaluru.

¶35

In the result, I pass the following

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶38

(ii) Hon’ble Shri. Ashok B Hinchigeri, Former Judge,

¶39

High Court of Karnataka, is hereby appointed as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties as per the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International) at Bengaluru.

¶40

(iii) All rival claims, contentions, etc., of both parties including contentions relating to maintainability, arbitrability, jurisdiction, limitation, stamp duty, etc.,

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:3249 CMP No. 274 of 2022

¶43

are left / kept open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶44

(iv) A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further and also to Hon’ble Shri. Ashok B Hinchigeri, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, to the address available with the said Centre.

¶45

(v) Registry is directed to return all original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

M/S. N D Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri. Rangappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. N D Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri. Rangappa

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri T Pavan Kumar Vs Sri N Ramesh

B Krishna Reddy Vs Bangalore Electricity

Smt Sharfunissa Vs Touffeq Ahmed

M/S. N.D.Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri.B. Narasimhaiah

Sri Ramaiah @ Ramanna Vs Sri Lakshman

Mr. Arun Kumar Jena Vs Mr. Motilal K