Allowed

M/S Radiant Structures Private Limited v. Sri N Ramachandra Reddy

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024CMP/941/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an arbitrator over disputes arising from a joint development agreement and a memorandum of agreement between developer and landowners. The court found an arbitration clause existed and appointed Justice K. Sreedhar Rao (retired) as arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Justice K. Sreedhar Rao (retired) appointed as arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from Annexures-B and D, directed to initiate two separate proceedings.

M/S Radiant Structures Private Limited Vs Sri N Ramachandra… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33172 CMP No. 941 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 941 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S RADIANT STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMAPNY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.48/49, 1^ST FLOOR, 9^TH COROSS, SARAKI MAIN ROAD, OPP TO RAJAKUMAR HOSPITAL, J.P. NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.M.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY AGED 50 YEARS.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RADHANANDAN B.S.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. N. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O LATE K.H.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.364, 10TH CROSS, 29TH A MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-I, BANGALORE-560 102.

¶13

MASTER R.GAJENDRA, S/O N.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.364, 10TH CROSS, 29TH A MAIN, HSR LAYOUT,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33172 CMP No. 941 of 2022

¶15

SECTOR-I, BANGALORE-560 102.

¶16

KUM.R.MONISHA, D/O N.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.364, 10TH CROSS, 29TH A MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-I, BANGALORE-560 102.

¶17

SRI.H.JAYARAMA REDDY, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA REDDY, AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/1B, INFOSYS GATE NO.6, KONNAPANNA AGRAHAR, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE-560 100.

¶18

SRI.MANJUNATHA REDDY, S/O H.JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/1B, INFOSYS GATE NO.6, KONNAPANNA AGRAHAR, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE-560 100.

¶19

SMT.ANITHA, D/O H.JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/1B, INFOSYS GATE NO.6, KONNAPANNA AGRAHAR, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE-560 100.

¶20

RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. DEVAIAH .M.P ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6.)

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33172 CMP No. 941 of 2022

¶23

THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE ABOVE CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS PER THE TERMS OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 30.03.2011 AT ANNEXURE-B AS WELL AS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 23.12.2013 AT ANNEXURE-D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC,.

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is filed for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents as per clause 15 of Annexure-B i.e., joint development agreement dated 30.03.2011 and memorandum of agreement for joint development dated 23.12.2013 vide Annexure-D.

¶27

Brief fact leading raise to filing of this petition are

¶28

as under:

¶29

The respondents are the land owners and the petitioner is the developer with respect to the petition schedule property

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:33172 CMP No. 941 of 2022

¶32

which was offered for joint development as per terms of joint development agreement vide Annexure-B and D. The respondents had made petition to change the development plan again and again, when the National Green Tribunal had fixed a buffer zones from water bodies. Finally at the request of respondents again the plan for third time was prepared by spending huge amount. But the respondents failed to execute the sharing agreement / area allocation and refused to register the joint development agreement and general power of attorney. Hence, the dispute arises between the parties. The petitioner invoking the arbitration clause issued a legal notice vide Annexure-H, suggesting the name Mr. Kukkaje Ramkrishna Bhat retired District and Sessions Judge as sloe arbitrator. Respondents reply to the legal notice with disagreement for the said appointment. Hence, cause of action arises for the petitioner to file this petition.

¶33

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed their statement of objections, contending that there are two distinct agreements in respect of two distinct properties and further contended that the joint development agreement was executed between the respondent Nos.1 to 5 as a first party and the petitioner as a

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33172 CMP No. 941 of 2022

¶35

second party. However, memorandum of agreement is executed between the respondent Nos.1 and 4 as a first party and petitioner as a second party and the subject matter of two agreements are different. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶36

Respondent No.4 filed memo adopting the

¶37

statement of objections filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there exist joint development agreement between the petitioner and the respondents as per Annexure-A and also there is an agreement for joint development agreement as per Annexure-B. He further submits that the respondents have not complied the terms and conditions of the joint development agreement and memorandum of agreement for joint development agreement. He submits that the dispute arises between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of joint development agreement and memorandum of agreement and he submits that there exists an arbitration clause and the

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:33172 CMP No. 941 of 2022

¶42

petitioner got issued legal notice to the respondents suggesting and nominating the name of Mr. Kukkaje Ramkrishna Bhat, retired District and Sessions Judge as an arbitrator. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶43

Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the

¶44

respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that, if Court come to a conclusion that petitioner made out a ground to allow the petition, two separate arbitrators may be nominated to decide the dispute as per the joint development agreement and memorandum of agreement for joint development agreement. Hence, on these grounds he prays to dispose of the petition.

¶45

Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The point that arise for consideration is;

¶46

i) Whether the petitioner made out a ground to refer the dispute to any arbitrator for adjudicate the dispute between the parties in term clause-15 of the Development Agreement vide Annexure-B and memorandum of agreement for joint development vide Annexure-D as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:33172 CMP No. 941 of 2022

¶49

It is not in dispute that, the respondents have executed a joint development agreement on 30.03.2011 in favour of the petitioner for developing the properties of the respondents. Further respondent Nos.1 and 4 have jointly executed a memorandum of agreement for joint development agreement on 23.12.2013 in favour of the petitioner. As per the joint development agreement and memorandum of agreement for joint development agreement, if any, dispute or difference arises between the parties the same shall be referred to the arbitration consisting of a sole arbitrator appointed by the petitioner who shall deal with the dispute under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶50

Admittedly, both the parties have executed the agreements as per Annexures-B and D and there arises a dispute between the parties and exist an arbitration clause. The dispute as to be resolved by way of appointing an arbitrator. The petitioner has made out a ground to refer the matter to the arbitrators for resolving the dispute in terms of Annexures-B and D as per the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:33172 CMP No. 941 of 2022

¶53

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed ;

¶56

ii) Hon’ble Sri. Justice K. Sreedhar Rao retired High Court Judge is appointed as an arbitrator to resolve the disputed arising out of Annexures-B and D and learned arbitrator is directed to initiate two separate proceedings and pass appropriate award in accordance with law;

¶57

iii) Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the learned Sri. Justice K. Sreedhar Rao former Judge of Karnataka High Court and to the Arbitration and conciliation center, Bengaluru.

¶58

Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶59

PNV

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

M/S Radiant Structures Private Limited v. Sri N Ramachandra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Radiant Structures Private Limited v. Sri N Ramachandra Reddy

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 Amiruddin Vs Sri Mohammad Ali (Since Dead)

Krishnappa Vs Sri Busappa

Sri. Vikram Prabhakar Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt Ningarajamma Vs Smt Hombamma

Sri. Krishnappa @ M.V. Krishnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Varsha Jadhav Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike