S N Venkatesh Babu S/O Late S … vs S N Manjunath S/O Late S Narayana … on 9 March, 2010

N THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 9"' DAY OF MARCH. 

BEFORE

THE I-l0N'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. §HAKTH:R'v".5liTSA!;A. _

WRIT PETITION NO.251'7 C513' 2.01.0  é  T

BETWEEN:

1.

 $ri~. S vMa&r:10haran, Advocate)

.'.1' '
1-.»

S. N. Venkatesh Babu, . _
S/0 Late 8. Narayana Set'Ly~,   .
Age 48 Years, '     "  ~ '
No. 14/9, 5th Cross," '
Wilson Garden, ....   '
Bangalpreé' --.. 56C;_' 027." 

Smt; 'Afiitha;'?'J."13;1?qi1V,._   V
, Aged.fL0:_Y;cars"; '  «_  

,VV~/To.' S;«.N. Vgénkatésh Ba-bu". . 

a_N0. 14f€_3., Sth Cross,
 WiiS011 Ga1.fdE:i1,,  _ 
Bagngalotfi ¥~  Q2 *7. 

... Petltloners

"S '.N .Maf1 unath.

Aged 45 cars.

/e.;"Late S. Narayana Setty,

~ No. 62/ 17, "Sri Rama Nivasa",
'==*;)pp to 11th Cross, Wfison Garden,
BTS Road, Ba.nga10re-- 560 027.



2. Smt. Sampretha.

Aged 35 Years,

W/0. S.N. Manjunath,

No. 62/ 17, "Sri Rama Nivasa".
Opp to 11th Cross.

Wilson Garden,

BTS Road, Bangalore-- 560 027.

   &  

=ne:iux==I$*ss C

This Writ Petition is 'under Articles:  227 ' C

of the Constitution of India, praying to call forentire records
in 0.S.No.8'/24/2007,---pendin.g"'on'"tiiefiie of"tvhe.XXXi Addl.
City Civil Judge, Bangaibre ..p}ea«sed to set-- aside the
order dated 16.11.20{)9',$ pass.ed' on I.=AANo..V1, produced vide
Anne:-n1re--E. V V.  '   ..

 iipetitiori   for Preliminary Hearing,
this day, ttieflourt in ade the following:

 R D E R

 uv"I'he apetitioners/piaintiffs No.1 8: 2 in

' onO.--S.N_o;~8f7§'4,/_2007 on the file of the City Civil and

 Bangalore City, are before this Court,

praying for quashing the order dated 16th November

'   passed on I.A.I in the above said suit, at

§AnneXure E.



2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the Trial Court erred in allowing i.A.I fi1ed.:'u_rider

Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation  

the defendants though they  not   

under the Act. Learned counsei'for.--A.the 

upon a decision reported    the' A

point that application forA.Aappo'inVtm.entd'of"Ar'bitrator is
not maintainable unless niechanisnaidagreed to by the

parties is cQ~trip.1ied vgzith, 

 it  the" defendants / respondents

herein; as perthe reconstituted partnership

deed-. 15*’ 2002, there is an Arbitration

petitioners have filed a suit for

. dfeclarativonfarid other reliefs. Therefore, it is contended

by the defendant/ respondent No.1 herein that the

is suit was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the

Vpetitioners submits that, clause 20 of the reconstituted

“tpartnership deed d1′:/(aid/I315′ July 2002 provides for

In the result, the petition fails and the same is

hereby dismissezd.

BMV* /150310