-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26?" DAV OF NOVEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE Moi-mi SHANT-'§\.i§i'AC§{§Ll'i5'A'R~é.
C.M.P. No.78/2(E51.(_)_:"A--A.V_z'
BETWEEN :
M/s. Down!inkTelenet .
A Proprietorship Concerns _
Having its office at
Door No.752/C, 5"' Cross' . :1» '
Air View Colony ..
Konena Agralnara ~ '
Airport Road' (O.!d~)_
Banga|ore_-_-_56O.V%{3i??,_ V
Rep byjits Prop'ri_etoi:fj" «V
K.J. Ba<;~:.avarajV. -- I ..Petitioner
(By M/s. CarIappa--
AND} E'
V' V:f1.;V_i'§/1,'-s:"Diha:Vrti._,_AirteI Ltd .,
Ha_v"in_gi its Re-gistered Office
_ H~v-5,5,12,.j=Mehrauir Road
. New De!iijir--?'11O 030
"Rep..__by~its Managing Director.
.VopM/s';r--~E%.harti Airtel Ltci.,
V Having its office at
' Maruthi Infotech Centre
.< pd.
11/1 and 12/1, Block A
West Wing, Koramangaia
Inner Ring Road, Amarjyothi
Layout, Bangalore~71. ..Respon<:len'ts:"'v,y
(By M/s. Lex Nexus, Adv.,)
This CMP is filed under Sectioiri 1(5) of the 'Ar'oitra,ti.ori_y
and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying thfcl,_l_;71;_l_1It$l_HQI17bI6fCOu:}fl}A'
may be pleased to appoint Mr. Justi{e_e"S. Ven1£a'tare__inai1--.
(Retd.), Former Judge of the_rH_igh Couiir. of K.ernataka., at
No.161. 2nd Block, ill Stage, West of "Chord Roaid',"i~iJ.udges * '
Colony, Basaveshwamagar, Bangalore-'?€3_ or' any other
competent person as the Sole A:§bitr_ator to adjiipdieate upon
the dispute of the Partiesiinder the'-Contract dated 4.4.2005
and consequently refer' 'the'--gd1ispulteV"l of the parties to
Arbitration. " i T'
This CMPoori'1'1ng:=ongfoi': this day the Court
made the fO1]y0ViT1'}'igi--h~_'_ ~. « V
rrrr IV Q' R.
The" into between the
petitionerland~res.pond'ents for laying telephone lines
.---.is_and.l'to:y_A~-Tcarry oluti*~-~l~oca| access and subscriber access
The petitioner has completed the
wo-rl< touit by the respondents. Though
V””‘-pl”rzertain».’amounts are paid to the petitioner by the
respondents, there is allegedly still balance due to the
\/5
petitioner by the respondents. There was exchange of
notices between the parties. However, dispu_4tes-.._ar_e
not settled. The petitioner has filed
invoking Section 11(5) of ,th»e._’Ar_bVi’trat’i’on”‘
Conciiiation Act, 1996, praying
dispute for adjudication to ‘the.”Arbit.rator.._i
2. Learned for the
respondents su_i.’mf_1its ithait not due any
su ms of paid all sums
security deposit is
returned.” parties are not agreeing
to they facts.V”Thus,~–._thenre exists dispute between the
‘id’«_pa’rt.i’es,.,feiatingiiitopayment of money. According to
ii’-..th.eu’pe”t«i.tioVner_j..amount is not paid to it, whereas
to the petitioner.
acc.ordj_.rig_it’oAithe respondents, entire amounts are paid
if
-4-
3. Copy of the agreement entered into between
the parties is produced at Annexure–A. ClausAe.%’i_;4.of
the agreement is arbitration clause. Notice’_:”i’s'”iV’s1s.:ujeid_”‘_
by the petitioner to the responde’n”ts–~3’_’;’i.n’v:ol<ingV'4 it
arbitration clause. Though the?'.A_'ar'bitrati'o:n
reveals that the Arbitral Trib.gn.al sh'al_l coAnvsis't"ofV~Vthree * it
Arbitrators, i.e., Arbii't'rat:ors'-~,.andA"a-n~*§Umpire,
learned advocates appearinigion sides agree
before this that be referred to
Sole '
l3oth_ the':VI'pa%rtie's.:Iuagree that Justice Jayaram
Chouta n'1a~\,rVbeVa~.pp~ol'irited as Sole Arbitrator to resolve
th"e."':'di_sVpuvite bet'we'en the parties. Accordingly, the
:fo_elllow.ifng is made:–
,.§u;sti’ce T.Jayaram Chouta, #385, 5″‘ Main, 11*”
A n.Cr”o«ss, RMV II Stage, E3angalore–56O 094, is appointed
. Hlfias Sole Arbitrator, to resolve the dispute between the
\_W
parties. The learned Arbitrator, on receipt of a copy of
this order, shaii enter upon the reference, issuev..n_io.t’iic.e
to the parties and then proceed to resolve .
in accordance with the provisio.n»s…of t’_he”4Arji.;itrai;i~on-._
and Conciiiation Act, 1996.
Office is directedto to
the learned Arbitrator,”_fort_h,i§v:ivth::,*Vi’,V:_v.:~FfiVce is further
directed to if any, filed
aiong with? oveti,tioner to enabie the
petitioinerVtoierodiitgce fbeiforei’t’h’e'”iearned Arbitrator.
Petition of accordingly.
Sci/-
JUDGE