Smt Devamma W/O. Nagarajgouda Patil Vs Kumar S/O Channappa Halli

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4688 CMP No. 100013 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA CIVIL MISC PETITION NO. 100013 OF 2024 (-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. DEVAMMA W/O. NAGARAJGOUDA PATIL, AGE: ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HOUSE NO.161, 2^ND CROSS, GOKUL ROAD, LAXMI NAGAR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580030.

¶9

…..PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD

¶13

KUMAR S/O. CHANNAPPA HALLI, AGE: ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NO.43, CHANNALLI BUILDING, 1^ST CROSS, JAYANAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580026.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(SRI. KUMAR S/O. CHANNAPPA HALLI – NOTICE TO SERVED RESPONDENT)

¶16

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, PRAYING TO APPOINT THE ARBITRATOR AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER CLAUSE 15 OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 31.10.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.

¶17

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

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4688 CMP No. 100013 of 2024

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator as per Clause (15) of the Partnership Deed dated 31.10.2013, produced as per Annexure-A to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and respondent, who are the partners of M/s Shri Sangamanath Agro Sales Corporation.

¶23

Heard Sri K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner. Respondent remained unrepresented.

¶25

It is the contention of the petitioner that, the petitioner and respondent are partners of the partnership Firm by name M/s Shri Sangamanath Agro Sales Corporation, carrying on business mainly in Agro Seeds, Pesticides, Fertilizers, Chemicals and other products. Respondent as one of the partners of the Firm filed private complaint in P.C.No.165/2017, before the learned I JMFC, Hubballi, against the 3^rd party, alleging commission of

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4688 CMP No. 100013 of 2024

¶27

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act” for short). The accused in the said case was convicted, the appeal also came to be dismissed, and the accused deposited the cheque amount before the Court. The same was withdrawn by respondent and he misappropriated the same without crediting it to the account of the Partnership Firm. Therefore the dispute arose between the partners.

¶28

As per Clause (15) of the Partnership Deed, produced as per Annexure-A, the parties have agreed to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. Accordingly, the petitioner issued the notice to the respondent on 19.03.2024 proposing the name of Sri H.R.Deshpande, Retired Principal District and Sessions Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, and calling upon the respondent to consent for the same. Even though, said notice was sent through RPAD, as per postal track consignment report, the notice was returned as ‘unclaimed’ to the sender.

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4688 CMP No. 100013 of 2024

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the order sheet dated 16.12.2024. On that day, the respondent was physically present before the court and therefore his name is shown in the cause list. Order sheet dated 03.03.2025 disclosures that, even though learned counsel for the petitioner was ready to address his arguments, the respondent was absent. To afford final opportunity, the matter was listed today. In spite of that, neither the respondent nor any advocate representing him, appeared before the Court. Thus it is to be concluded that, even after giving sufficient opportunity, the respondent is not appearing before this Court to contest the matter.

¶31

On consideration of the contentions taken by the petitioner in the light of the documents that are produced before the Court, I am satisfied that, there is a partnership deed with Clause (15), whereunder the partners, i.e., the petitioner and the respondent have agreed to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator. A notice was

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4688 CMP No. 100013 of 2024

¶33

issued calling upon the respondent to cooperate in appointing the Arbitrator by proposing the name of the sole Arbitrator. But the notice was not claimed by the respondent. Even though, the notice of this petition was served on the respondent, he remained unrepresented.

¶34

In view of the above, I do not find any reason

¶35

to reject the claim of the petitioner. Hence the petition is liable to be allowed and an Arbitrator is to be appointed by referring the matter to the Arbitration Centre. Accordingly,

¶36

I proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶39

(ii) Shri H.R.Deshpande, Retired Principal District and Sessions Judge, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to hold Arbitration, in accordance with law.

¶40

(iii) Office is directed to communicate this Order to Sri H.R.Deshpande, Retired Principal District and Sessions Judge, “Sri Kamala”, H.I.G. No.76, 3^rd Main, 8^th ‘E’ Cross, K.H.B. Colony,

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4688 CMP No. 100013 of 2024

¶42

(Lakamanahalli, 2^nd Stage), Vidyagiri, Dharwad580004, (Karnataka) Mobile No.9480428151, for proceeding further in the matter.

¶43

(iv) Registry is directed to return the original documents, if any, produced by the parties after obtaining Photo copies of the same for the file.

¶44

Sd/(M.G.UMA) JUDGE

¶45

EM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Smt Devamma W/O. Nagarajgouda Patil v. Kumar S/O Channappa Halli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Devamma W/O. Nagarajgouda Patil v. Kumar S/O Channappa Halli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maha Saraswathi Vidhyapeeth Vs the State of Karnataka

Kottur Swami Math Vs Ravimurthy S/O Rammurthy

The Sar Desai Vs the Principal Secretary

Amaresh Sharan Patil Vs Karnataka State Law University

Sri. Shankramma W/O Mahadevappa Madiwalar Vs the Regional Joint Director of Land Records

The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Karwar Vs the State of Karnataka