w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mitra Bhoomi Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v/s N.S. Niranjan & Another

    Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 111 of 2014

    Decided On, 01 September 2014

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

    For the Petitioner: N.K. Ramesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Served ? Unrepresented.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This CMP Is Filed Under Section 11 (5, 6) Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 Praying To Appoint A Sole Arbitrator To Adjudicate The Dispute Arising Out Of The Memorandum Of Understanding Dated 23.05.2013, Duly Registered On 05.06.2013 As Per The Clause No.10 In The Above Matter By Appointing Any Retired District Judge In Pursuance Of The Clause No.10 Of The Memorandum Of Understanidng Dated 23.05.2013 And To Pass Such Other Orders As Necessary Under The Facts And Circumstnaces Of The Case And In The Interest Of Justice.)

1. The petitioner has filed this civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'), for resolution of the dispute, which has arisen in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU' for short) at Annexure-A dated 23.05.2013.

2. The petitioner contends that the respondents are the owners of property bearing Sy.No.6 measuring 1 acre 36 guntas, Sy.No.15 measuring 2 acres, Sy.No.16 measuring 2 acres, Sy.No.17 measuring 2 acres, Sy.No.18 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas and Sy.No.19 measuring 2 acres, in all measuring 12 acres 3 guntas situated at Kambampalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District. The petitioner has entered into the aforesaid MOU with the respondents for promotion/marketing of the sites made in the said property. It is further contended that the respondents have failed to perform their obligations under the MOU. Therefore, the petitioner issued a notice for appointment of an arbitrator for the resolution of the dispute. The respondents have sent their reply denying the contents of the notice. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute.

3. Though the respondents are served, they have remained unrepresented.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. It is clear that the parties have entered into the aforesaid MOU and the said MOU contains an arbitration clause, which is as under:

"10. ARBITRATION:

In the event of breach of the terms of this MOU or in the event of any differences of the disputes arising between the parties in regard to this MOU or any matter relating thereto, the same shall be referred to and settled by Arbitrator under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act in force and the same shall be decided within the Jurisdiction of Chintamani."

6. It is clear that a dispute has arisen between the parties in relation to the aforesaid MOU. I am of the view that it is just and proper to appoint an arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute.

7. In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed in part. Sri.S.Siddalingesh, a retired District Judge is requested to enter u

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

pon the reference and arbitrate over the dispute and conduct arbitration proceedings at Arbitration Centre in terms of the Arbitration Centre - Karnataka (Domestic and International) Rules, 2012. No costs. 8. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Arbitration Centre, Bangalore, forthwith.
O R