IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Mr. Raghunandan Rao.B S/o Mr.Ramesh Rao.B – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Mithun Maroli S/o Mr. M.Balakrishna - Respondent
Civil Misc. Petition No. 588 of 2022
Decided on : 02-09-2022
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 11(6) - Dispute - Order Of Appointing Arbitrator - Petitioner is before this Court seeking for following reliefs wherefore, petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of appointing Arbitrator to resolve dispute between Petitioner and Respondent as specified in Joint Development agreement as per Clause No:18 by allowing this petition in interest of justice and equity.
Finding of the Court: Having perused arbitration clause which has been reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that parties had agreed for settlement of dispute by way of arbitration by Mr.Guruprasad, Advocate - Same would indicate that Arbitrator has been specifically chosen and identified and as such, there is a named arbitrator in agreement - Once there is a named arbitrator, it is named arbitrator alone who could arbitrate dispute between parties - Neither of parties could deviate from said named arbitrator unless by written consent between themselves - Petitioner by way of notice has deviated from named arbitrator and sought to appoint one other person as an arbitrator which is not permissible - As such Court is of considered opinion that no notice could be issued in this matter - Faced with above situation, learned counsel for petitioner seeks liberty to issue fresh notice and approach this Court, if required - Liberty is however reserved to petitioner for initiation of fresh notice invoking arbitration clause by naming person stated therein as an arbitrator and thereafter if need be, to approach this Court if respondent does not respond favourably.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
2. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.07.2018 whereunder the petitioner had agreed to purchase the property scheduled to said agreement. Said agreement is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of Clause 18 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
3. There being certain disputes between the parties, the petitioner had initially issued a notice on 25.03.2021 calling upon the respondent to comply with its obligation. Despite service thereof, no compliance was made, as such, the petitioner issued another notice dated 25.04.2022 invoking the arbitration clause and nominating Sri.Mosa Kunhi Nayarmoole, former District and Sessions Judge to resolve the dispute between the parties. The said notice also having been served, no response having been received, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for aforesaid relief.
4. Sri.K.Shashikanth Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there being arbitration clause invoked, the matter is required to be resolved by the Arbitrator, as such, notice may be ordered.
5. Having perused the arbitration clause which has been reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that parties had agreed for settlement of dispute by way of arbitration by Mr.Guruprasad, Advocate, having his office at 1st Floor, Vijayashree Chambers, Near Karangalpady Market, Mangaluru – 575 003. The same would indicate that the Arbitrator has been specifically chosen and identified and as such, there is a named arbitrator in the agreement.
6. Once there is a named arbitrator, it is the named arbitrator alone who could arbitrate the dispute between the parties. Neither of the parties could deviate from the said named arbitrator unless by written consent between themselves. The petitioner by way of notice dated 25.04.2022 has deviated from the named arbitrator and sought to appoint one other person as an arbitrator which is not permissible. As such I am of the considered opinion that no notice could be issued in this matter. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to issue fresh notice and approach this Court, if required.
7. In the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that such liberty is required to be reserved. As such, I pass the following:
i. The petition is dismissed.
ii. Liberty is however reserved to the petitioner for initiation of fresh notice invoking arbitration clause by naming the person stated therein as an arbitrator and thereafter if need be, to approach this Court if the respondent does not respond favourably.
When parties fail to act as per the arbitration clause in an agreement, the petitioner is entitled to approach the court for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration And C....
Petition seeking appointment of Arbitrator is not sustainable in a situation where arbitration clause itself is disputed.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not acceptable, and an Arbitrator must be appointed in accordance with the arbitration agreement and the provisions of the Standard Conditions of Supply Ord....
The court appointed an arbitrator as the parties consented to arbitration under the existing arbitration clause, complying with statutory requirements.
Strict enforcement of arbitration agreement and the law does not permit either party to act as an arbitrator or appoint the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.