High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr Ashok Gupta vs M/S Windsor Gardens Pvt Ltd on 3 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mr Ashok Gupta vs M/S Windsor Gardens Pvt Ltd on 3 March, 2009
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT B.4£\§GALORE-

DATED "HHS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCEI 2009

BE-FCIRE

THE HOEWBLE MILJESTICE S. ABDUL MXEER 5  i T *«  '  

CIVIL MISCELL4NEOUS PETITIONNO. 881/figizflg  if 7}; f  "

Between:   é

ix-irjkshok Gupta,

Aged about 53 years,

SEO Mr.R.?.Gupta,

No.8, Kama, No.5,

L§tt1e Gibbs Read:

Malabar Hills,  «. ._  . V "  

Murnbai W 400 006. ' J _T "    _'L?v....;;,v§'"€titi0nex.

(By Sri Rape;-£':vi; =1¢2;;;~safir§;§3;I,';2=.:is;r;j}'AjL' A 

Aad :

Mfg \E'inds(_>;* Gaféegé PV.t".'Ltd*..,  v
A cortip,-a.t_%1_v* iIIAa:=o:rpora'resi under'

 The.Co:n;5a:2ie.s A-gt, 1956," %%%% 
'fi_avi1ig.,its Ruegd. -Office preseni;Ijy'

Af  _8_l",' 36§'».C1*6§s?_ 6?' Main,
5!?' }:i1ock,,;¥ayana:ga:;, iiiangalore W 560 041,

L  "'vReptd.ABy its chai::man&

Mmiagizxg Diresztor,

"  iv 'M;';».3\.=i.Srini1za,§a R39. . . ,. Respondent.

éainatiza Narde & Revathjg.-‘ A58, Advs.)

This Civil Misc. Petition is fired under Section 11{is)i§fii£2:e ii

Arbitratwxz and Conciliatioiz Act, 1996 pmying to z1g:gn1’is«1at4.~:-._i.é3;;1:i

appoint the respondent’s Arbitraior and ref§r..t0__the two é”r’ei1rat'{;r$’}_ _V
the dispute that has arisen between the p§fi£;’t3i1§’:I’i’A 21:.1d’–.1hs: f

respondent, etc.

This Civil Misc. Petition comifig for 2kd:nissiéx:_
the Count made the following; i w ‘ ‘

The petitionar has filed uxxaér 21(5) of
the Arbitration and ‘the Act’) for
appointment of air. which has arisen

out Qfthe agfeeriiéntiéiatgci .–

2. 13;: an greegnezit dateaii 17.10.1996, the respondent, 3

§i;flg”‘sIere&’-<$¢:i:i3a:i§;'..s_ituatefi§i'iiéif «Bangalore agreed ta deveiap a large

aréét Hoskcte Taiuk in Bangaiort-. Rural

V£'iStrict,At£)__p:'Q}3idevi'fi3£idS, tvater, eiectricity, plant 3. large number of

" builrfa Club House and 331% to the petitioner a quarter

§¢r§o:"i–§,i§§G6 square feet of plot bearing No.129 bounded on the

byialat No.128, west by plot H9130, north by mad anti sauth

213

1/.

3. After service of notice, the respondent has entereil. _._ it

appearance through its learned Advocate. However, the ._

has not filed any obj-ections.

4. I have beam the learned Counsel_ for Aoerties. T . ” A’

5. Learned Counsel for the resoondeot sub’1oi__ts’tif:et_he..;h212»V

uo objection for appointment ofan A:hit:’2.to’r. ifi–~..aecordar::e with

Clause 18 of 1~.A1m.eXofe._-‘V53;9the*ag;:ee:n_er;t. In the circuntstanees, I

pass the followilzigzll .

allowed.

A .I_I;-l’l3._-f£zl;.R;éfr_:o_’lliuikarni, Retired District Judge, No.20-B,

:9?” ‘Cf’ l”eiai;;l.’fi-elm” Black, Rajajinagar, Bangalo1’e-56G 010, is

._as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the

‘K.

III. Learned Arbitrator on receipt Of a copy at’ this Qrde1_f_

shaii enter upon the reference and then issue notice to the

and proceed to rescive the dispiite in accordance with the 4′ V”.

IV. Office is directed tn send a cop;-‘»AA0f_tl1is

ieamed Arbitrator. It is further directed to retizm the VT

aiong with the petition to the petitioxterite._enai§’I’e him

the same before the Arbitrator. Z510 casts.——–

BMMf-