M/S Bvl Building Solutions Vs M/S Ithaca Estates Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. BVL BUILDING SOLUTIONS A FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 13-72, KONDEPI ROAD, TANGULUR, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523 274, REPN. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, S/O SRI. A. RAMALINGAM, (PLANT MANAGER), AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR C.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S. ITHACA ESTATES PVT. LTD. HAVING OFFICE AT: SKYLARK CHAMBER, NO.37/21, YELLAPPACHETTY LAYOUT, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042. REPN. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:21558 CMP No. 352 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, R/W RULE 4 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, ARBITRATION (PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURTS), RULES 2001, PRAYING TO APPOINT ARBITRATORS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND REFER THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ADJUDICATION AS PER CLASUE 26 AT PAGE 5 OF THE AGREEMENT / WORK ORDER DATED 06.12.2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent, as per Clause (26) of the Work Order dated 06.12.2018 vide Annexure ‘C’.

¶23

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶24

The respondent placed Work Order with the petitioner for supply and installation of wooden and UPVC doors and windows on 06.12.2018 at Skylark Ithaca

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21558 CMP No. 352 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Project. The petitioner raised invoices for a sum of ₹19,31,070/- after supply and installation of doors, door-sets and windows at Skylark Itacha. The respondent made a payment of ₹9,80,000/- against the bill raised by the petitioner, however, the respondent did not repay the balance amount. Hence, the petitioner got issued a legal notice on 18.04.2023 calling upon the respondent to repay the balance amount vide Annexure “D”.

¶28

The said notice was served on the respondent. However, the respondent did not reply to the notice, the petitioner has issued an Addendum on 17.07.2023 by invoking the arbitration clause. The said notice was also served on the respondent. Despite service of notice, the respondent did not come forward to pay the balance amount and appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Hence this petition.

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21558 CMP No. 352 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The notice of this petition was issued to the respondent and despite service of notice, respondent remained unrepresented.

¶32

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has placed the Work Order with the petitioner and the petitioner had supplied and installed the doors, windows etc., worth ₹19,31,070/-. The respondent made a part payment of ₹9,80,000/-, but did not pay the balance amount. The petitioner issued a demand notice to the respondent and also issued a legal notice invoking the arbitration clause. He submits that the respondent neither replied to the legal notice nor to the Addendum. Hence this petition.

¶34

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:21558 CMP No. 352 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The point that arises for consideration in this petition

¶39

is as follows:

¶40

“Whether the petitioner made out a ground to refer the matter to the arbitrator for adjudication of disputes in terms of Clause (26) of the Work Order dated 06.12.2018 as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?”

¶41

There is no dispute that the respondent has placed a

¶42

work order. After supply and installation of doors, door sets, window, etc., the respondent made a part payment of ₹9,80,000/- but failed to pay the balance amount of ₹9,51,070/-. The petitioner issued a demand notice on 18.04.2023. Despite service of notice, the respondent did not pay the balance amount. The petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause (26) under the Work Order dated 06.12.2018, which reads as follows:

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:21558 CMP No. 352 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

“26. Arbitration : In the event of any differences or disputes arising out of or in connection with this Work Order, the same shall be first amicably settled by mutual dialogue. If the parties fail to settle the differences or disputes, then it shall be referred to the arbitration of two Arbitrators - one to be nominated by Contractor and one by the Client. The Arbitrators shall nominate a Presiding Arbitrator before the commencement of arbitration proceedings. In case, the Arbitrators fail to arrive at a decision, the dispute will be referred to the Presiding Arbitrator. The decision of the Presiding Arbitrator shall be final, conclusive and binding on both the parties. The arbitration shall proceed as per the provisions contained in the "The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996" and as amended thereon, if any up to date, and its jurisdiction shall be at Bangalore. ”

¶47

As per the Work Order dated 06.12.2018, the petitioner by issuing an Addendum dated 17.07.2023, proposed the name of Shri Kukkeji Ramachandra Bhat, retired District Judge, as an arbitrator. The said

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:21558 CMP No. 352 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

notice was served on the respondent. Despite service of notice, respondent did not reply to the arbitration notice.

¶52

Admittedly, a dispute has arisen between the parties and there is an arbitration clause in the Work Order, as such, the dispute has to be resolved through the arbitrator. Since there is an arbitration clause and the parties have exhausted the pre-institution mediation proceedings in PIM No. 1458 of 2023 and the said proceedings were closed on 11.07.2023, the dispute between the parties has to be resolved through an arbitration.

¶53

In view of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative and accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21558 CMP No. 352 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

(ii) Shri. B. A. Muchandi, retired District Judge, is named as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Rules.

¶59

(iii) The office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator and also to the Arbitration and Consolation Center, Bengaluru.

¶60

(iv) The office is directed to return the original documents, if any, to the petitioner after retaining a photocopy of the same.

¶61

(v) All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand dispensed of.

¶62

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶63

RK

¶64

CT: KVH

¶65

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

M/S Bvl Building Solutions v. M/S Ithaca Estates Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bvl Building Solutions v. M/S Ithaca Estates Pvt. Ltd.

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

Sri. Venkoba Rao Vs Sri Narayan Rao Since Dead by His Lrs

Smt Ningamma Vs Sri M.S. Lokananda

M/S Legacy Global Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Estello Properties

Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs Smt Rathnamma

M/S Kids Clinic India Ltd. Vs Smt. Ritika Jain

Smt Vijayalaxmamma Vs Smt Thayamma