'",Vbetween,£5"
CM? 127/O8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREs
DATED rars Tag 15" BAY or GCTOBER, 2009wrV,Wo
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT
BETWEEN:
Smt. Srilatha, V Ea _
W/0. Dr. B.R.Sathya Bhoj,r.A~
Aged about 50 years, 5
R/at No.66, .2
Margosa Road, _'
Malleswaram West, 1 _
Bangalorem560"O55,""°
[By Sr1._CTGr§o§ia$aswamy;'fidvrjf
AND:
J.GUNJALu '.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS ptrrrrom N5 127 §§a;0O§"Q'."
PETITZONER/S
M/s. Property Beveiopoent Corporation,
A partnership*firm formerly carrying
"*%on oosinese at N015?/2, 11"'Main,
.V Malieswaram},
'zBanga1ore~56Q'003,
Now at Flat No.401, 'Aatreya',
R.v:,30,"nQ¢57,
't10"'MaihaRoad,
& 16*" Cross,
fMaileswaram,
'BaaqaLore--S6O OO3,
T}Rep. by partner:
Ravi Vijayasarathy.
{VRavi Vijayasarathy,
S/o. K.T.Vijayasarathy,
Aged about 43 years,
Partner:
M/s. property Development
Corporation,
'6VAgeé
_'3 Rgv. 36,
:*,WMargosa Road, Malleswaram,
V_ Bangalorem56G 025.
2 CM?
Flat No.401, 'Aatreya',
R.V. 30, No.57,
10" Main Road,
between l5m__& l6"'Cross,
Malleswaram,
Bangalorew560 G03.
Indulekha Vijayasarathy,
W/o. K.T.Vijayasarathy,
Aged about 68 years, .~w-
Parnter: j _M V 1 A
M/s. Property Bevelopment Corporation,F "
Flat No.4Gl, 'Aatreya', W
R.V. 30, No.57,
10" Main Road, g
between 15"' & 16" Cross,HH"
Malleswaram, '~ 7
Bangalorem56D O03.
Kamala Sundar,_
W/o. R.S.Sundar,y
Aged abouta48~years,aA a' 5
R/at Old NQ;23/5;<NéwfNo.25f5,
Gopalakrishha;Roa&,v,"H, '
T. Nagar,' "fv_7g6*
chennai:5oo,o17,V§=
Padmini, , ~
W/o»gP.Unni Krishnan,
'about 58 years,
.R/at F;at--No 202,
7_RIV,'36,g*Ramanna', No.66,
MargosaWRoad,"Malleswaram,
Bangalore%560 O25.
_4,gPadijorot Unni Krishnan,
'=_S/Q, Krishnan Nair,
~ Aged about 65 years,
Rfat Flat No.12o2,
'Ramanna', No.66,
S.Vijayalakshmi,
W/o. R.Sankaranarayanan,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at Flat No.30l,
127/O8
3 CMP 127/O8
R.V. 36, 'Ramanna', No.66,
Margosa Road, Malleswaram,
Bangalore~56O 025.
8. S.R.Vijayaraghavan,
S/0. S.R. Ranganathan,
Aged about 43 years,
Rep. by P.A.holder,
S.R.Ranganathan,
R/at No.A/8, Balaji Darshan,C
Patharli Rjoadk,
Namdev Park Wadi, 3. . ' ov=An 1 M
Dombivili East~621 201.' _".V (L, v_RESPQNBEfiT/S
[By M/s. Unni Krishna & Gangadharappaf'Advsf For
R4 to 8. N'at _* i~uVixp "A"
Sri. K.P.Thrimurthy,AAdv§jforfR1,and 2.
R3 is served.} T ""V5 ' "" i
This Civvil"»~.MV,isc.iP.etvit.io%i is filed u/S.11(5) of
the Arbitratioh and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying
to appoint _anfl»aroitrator_ to arbitrate upon the
differenoe/disputes between the petitioner and the
respondent arising out of the Joint Development dt.
June 26, i9'9:s_.i. ' -
This" Civil _Miso. Petition coming on for
V Admission; this day the Court made the following:
ORDER
The’ petitioner has filedi this petition under
i’_SeCtioh ll of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
V*,p199o. The petitioner claims to be the daughter~in~
iiaw of one Dr. B.K.Ramanna, who was the owner of the
property bearing No.66, old. No.599, Margosa Road,
Malleswaram, Bangalorew3. He entered into an B
,/
M
4 CMP 127/O8
agreement on 26.06.1995 with the 35″ respondent for
development of Schedulee”A” property. vwglhe
development agreement envisaged construction *ofl”a
multiestoried apartment building and the_sharingtof-r
the built up area between the 1% respcngent and theéh
father-in-law-of the petitioner was in the ratie 5::
67:33. The 1″ respondent had cailea the prpjegf aV_i
36 as the name of the builging was unoeciged. The
fathereinelaw of the petitioner di§fi.0W 26th August
1995 leaving behind malgwili idategt’l9.06.l995.
Pursuant to the said Will; the petitioner claims to
be a legatee, git appears that ouring the lifeetime
of the ifather5in}law_ of _the petitioner, he was
negotiating ahwith. itheg} la’ respondent for the
_qeveiopment Of~,&5chedule–“AF property and was
‘expecting to be given three apartments in the ground
floor ana one would be in the first floor. But,
Vhowever,=respondents l to 3 have failed to develop
iuhiSchedule%”a” property in accordance with the
lflevelopment Agreement and virtually abandoned the
wproject. The claim of the petitioner is that she
A”~has spent Rs.7 lakhs to make 2 apartment that
belonged to her habitable although it was the
obligation of the 15g and 3rd respondents to completejfig
5 CM? 127/O8
the 2 apartments in all respects and deliver it to
her. Since the dispute has arisen between Dthe
petitioner on one hand and the respondents i 3nd gen
on the other hand, notice was issned a_oopv of vhioh 2
is produceds as Annexure–“B” invoking Vfifiep=arpitral#
clause to appoint an arbitrator rto resolve flthafix
disputes. Three names ot7:the’ Arbitpatorsiiwere
suggested. It appears that {ha gespgndents have not
responded to the said noticei” Hence this petition.
2. Notice }was.horderedf to “the respondents.
Respondents ,;;rfg ‘and %§a%£O 38 have put their
appearange. _hdesRespondent _;No.3 is served and
unrepresented,
3§'”rnThe ‘learned counsel for the petitioner
zgsobmits that since there is an Arbitral Clause, an
Arbitrator .is Vrequireds to be appointeds to resolve
Vi the dispotephetween the parties.
4.”v_’£he learned counsel for the respondents
«submits that the agreement was entered into between
i~ the parties in the year 1995 and hence invoking the
hp’ .pV I I /fl
‘._MArbitral Clause does not arise. jg?
6 CMP 127/08
5. Apparently, it is to be noticed that the
Agreement was entered into between the parties. in
the year l995. The perusal of the KAgreement .
discloses that there is EH1 Arbitral Clause, kwhich ”
would, indicate that if any dispute farises”-hetweent
the parties to the Agreement, it is required to be_ ;
decided under the Indian iArhitration: Act: l94G.
Indeed, as on the vdate jwheniithea Agreement was
entered into, the Indian Arhitration Act 1940 was on
the statute and the same isVre§laced by l996 Act.
Since the proceedingS are to be initiated under the
new Act, :ne,§re§éfi:«pe§iti5h~i§ filed. Indeed, it
is to her noticedfi thatg when the proceedings are
initiated under the 1995 Act, notice is required to
_be issued[~ In this case, notice is issued and the
Asame*is not responded within 30 days. Even under
Section s67¢f_ébé 1996 Act it envisages that the new
VAct shall apply to the Arbitral proceedings, which
A” commences on or after this Act come into force.
‘,6. The petitioner will have to file a petition
uunder Section 11 of the Act before this Court.
fiaving regard to the tact that the Indian
Arbitration Act 1940 is no longer on the statute and
/
7 CMP 12?/O8
the same is replaced by the Arbitration and
Conciliation. Act, 1996, I am of the View that to
resolve the dispute between. the parties.g!Kan
Arbitrator is required tc> be appointed. _fHenoefhi”«
pass the following:
ORDER
The petition stands aliowed.
Sri. M.J.Endrakumar,;” Retired bistrict &
Sessions Judge, r/o. ‘ho. tNou51§}oFfSrinivas’, 8*”
Cross, J.P.Nag_a1–.:,:’v..:II;_” p:ri1’a’.~%,¢;~,4:’~«..g3mg’a;.oii:em56G 078 is
appointed. as_ an .Arbitrator_ to resolve the dispute
between the ‘parties; “<,fné Arbitrator shall enter
reference and ,cause inotice to the learned counsel
hifbfg the 7Pafties. H'"i iiiii The Registry is directed to
oommoflieateipthis Order to the Arbitrator. All
V".g contentions are left open. I; '
-. _4 Ks’m’*