Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Shimizu Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
K.S.Suresh, S/o K.S.Shivananjaiah – Respondent
ORDER
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
ON I.A.Nos.1 AND 2 OF 2024
The petitioner, in the subject petition, had prayed for referring the matter for arbitration and to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents, arising out of a lease deed dated 19-08-2011 and renewals thereof dated 26-07-2012, 10-07-2013, 29-04-2014 and 01-04-2015.
2. This Court, on hearing the parties, disposed of the petition on 01-10-2021 by appointing one Sri I.S.Antin, Retired District Judge as a sole arbitrator to enter into the reference of the dispute between the parties and conduct proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru (‘Centre’ for short) by the following order:
“…. …. ….
2. The petitioner and respondents entered into a Lease Agreement for lease of the schedule premises as found in agreement, after which, certain disputes with regard to payment of lease advance amount in terms of the Lease Agreement amount to Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs) remained un-paid, pursuant to which, the petitioners at the out-set issued two notices demanding the amount.
3. The notice was issued by the petitioner on 20.03.2017 seeking re
The court determined that once arbitration proceedings commence, they cannot be closed due to technical non-compliance with timelines, emphasizing the right to a just resolution under the Arbitration....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 is not maintainable when the sole Arbitrator is appointed by mutual consent and in the ab....
The court upheld arbitration awards, finding no violation of natural justice, as BSNL's failure to participate justified the ex parte award.
The provisions of section 34(5) and 34(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 are directory and not mandatory.
Refusal to extend arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A due to claimant's fault and abandonment terminates arbitral proceedings, barring fresh appointment under Section 11 by defaulting party.
The court established that the right to file a rejoinder in arbitration proceedings creates continuity, thus justifying an extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate despite significant delays due ....
The unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is invalid, and parties retain the right to seek an independent substitute Arbitrator for unresolved counter-claims following termination of arbitral proce....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate can be due to the efflux of time and non-payment of fees, and in such cases, the petition s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
