Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38785
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.P. No.565 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
PRASANNA V. GHOTAGE
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT 1088/B, PRERANA HOMES
RANADE COLONY, HINDWADI
BELAGUM-590011.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. SARAVANA S, ADV.,)
AND:
M/S MSPL LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
BALDOTA ENCLAVE ABHERAJ
BALDOTA ROAD, HOSPET-583203
BELLARY DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS MANAGER MARKETING
MOHITH J. RATOLILKAR.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. S. SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADV.,)
- - -
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE RULE 11(3) OF
2
ARBITRATION CENTRE RULES AS ULTRAVIRES SECTION 23 AND
25 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996. QUASH
ANNEXURE-E THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR ON
25.11.2016 IN A.C.NO.86/2016. FURTHER ISSUE A WRIT OF
APPROPRIATE NATURE TO EXTEND THE TIME TO FILE OBJECTION
STATEMENT BY A REASONABLE PERIOD AS THIS HON'BLE COURT.
GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE
THE
SOLE
ARBITRATOR
IN
ARBITRATION
CASE
NO.86/2016.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’
GROUP, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the
validity of Rule 11(3) of the Arbitration Centre Rules as ultra
vires Section 23 and 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 and has also sought for writ of certiorari for
quashment of order dated 25.11.2016 passed by sole
Arbitrator under A.C.No.86/2016.
2.
When the matter was taken up today, learned
Senior counsel at the outset submitted that the petitioner
shall reimburse the fee of the Arbitrator paid by the
appellant to the respondent on or before 01.04.2022. It is
further submitted by him that the petitioner be granted the
liberty to contest the proceedings before the arbitrator. It is
3
also submitted that in case, the petitioner is granted the
liberty to file counter claim/written statement, the petitioner
is not inclined to challenge the validity of the Rule and he
may be permitted to withdraw his challenge to Rule 11 (3)
of the Rules.
3.
Learned counsel for the respondent fairly
submits that he has no objection to the aforesaid prayer
made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.
4.
In view of the aforesaid submission made and
with a view to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to
contest the proceedings before the Arbitrator, it is directed
that the petitioner shall pay the amount of his share of fee
to respondent on or before 01.04.2022. The order dated
25.11.2016 passed by the Arbitrator is hereby quashed and
the petitioner is granted the liberty to file counter
claim/written statement, if any on or before 08.04.2022. On
filing of the pleading by the petitioner, the learned Arbitrator
may proceed with the proceedings expeditiously. It is
further
directed
that
the
petitioner
shall
not
seek
4
unnecessary adjournment in the proceedings before the
Arbitrator.
With the aforesaid submission, the petition is disposed
of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
