High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri B Mothilal Ranka vs Smt Shoba Devi on 4 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri B Mothilal Ranka vs Smt Shoba Devi on 4 November, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
11% THE me:-1 COURT 01? KARNATAKA AT Banempxm
mama THIS Ti-E 04»: my OF NOVEMBER.   

BEF{'3%

TI-IE HQNBLE :uR...Jtrs'rIcE MOHAN & '

C.M.P.Na.83?¢AC}F  *;%:o 1€>% 7%   

 E

BRIBhIOTHII.ALRANI€A. 
smmm sm. , A
AGED 'm'rEARs,  
R;A'rNc:>.12, «rm    
IEYSORE.     " 

(Bysr£=s%%v$3NmDV~%J{ &
am sno'B,A%D¢mi1%   J  %

w; 0 am. 
AGEi£> ABOUT yams,

  ..... ..
.lfl$SIf.§hI_H.<3SPITAL Rom,

  

 RESPQNDERT

  " " '    3 BEAT, A12W., ma HIS. 3.3. am? a. ASSTS. )

j THIS CIVIL lE8C.PE'I'lTIOR ¥'ILED U/5.1106} QF THE

T % L   Amrrxwrzox AND conzcmmnon ACT, 19%, PRAYING To

APPOINT am. VINGD KUIEAR EAIENAL, arm canoes,
NEAR L'1"I'IGE G'|III),1Ni)EANAGAR, lEYSORE,AS mm 131*



Armrrmmn mm APPOINT 521.. s. pxasm, ADVDIGATE,
z¢o.14*m5, I FLOOR, 8.R.BUK.--E3E'iG, ma. Mmsnxm
amp. rmmnm mmmv mam, mrs0RE«5'2'oeo4 as
THE am) ARBIFRATOR mm Apmxzrr am. VENKAi 'E8H,
RETIRED nmmcr JUDGE, VLIAYANAGAR, 

THE mzsmme Amrrmmrz, IN THE  LM['§;wf' 

JUSTICE ART} EQUIIY.

mm cup mama can mammsm 

THE mum MADE THE FC)LLQWH¢»f}_:-"'
O 3 
Petitianer    fiartners,
the copy at' the   produced at

   The partnczrship

busi:1es3 'a:aE  be carried an undcr the

 Aém,aty1ea£~wa. Bhandari Motors or such

 diiiér  as the partaera may deem fit.

 the petitioner, he has leased the

 to the partnerhsip firm fer i"7,500/- rent

  '"3:{e;r";month and that the partnership firm should

T   the petiticner {$0,000/~ annually. Since the

said amounts are not paid, he isaued neticc tn the

W



raapon.-dent. Respondent in-turn made equate:

claim against the petitioner by asking

than asked by tha petitianer.

arisen between the parti;:’é” x:;z’#2:i’,::’ »

ultimately a nctice: camg A.

petibioner cal11ng’ upon afitroint
arbitrator. In the pctifiganer has

appointed an A.:bitra:;a§

2. Té%Ve>:::ii.:’)fi:>:”‘ftIV.V. c;:mta1na,’ arbitration
clauség ffpgfinfimhip dccd reveals
that izetwaen the partners shall

be ” 1_3?:fcerre«r1.V a; ‘bitra.tion of two persons, one to

by each of the partners. Both the

agree that the matter be referred

ta for adjudication. They else agree that

A ” éégie arbitratcsr may be appointed imtcad of two

‘ and an umpire. Having regard tn the

above, this Court ccnoludes that disputes have

arisen between the partiw and such diaputes are to

Y’

be adjudicated by Ariaitral Tribunal unde_.;’__ the

prcsvisions of Arbitration and Conciliation

Htawever, the Arbitral Tribunal should

one arbitramr as agrced betujisén’ V

the Ccmrt.

5. Accordingly, bidet :5 made:

3.. Sri. :r2’¥.”* Cmas,
Mysore:

te decide
“the parfiea. The
” an receipt of a

VVbf’4Vthia.’:_”.i:rder, shall enter upon

‘V reféré.1®e,«:iasu¢ notice to the partiaw

‘ proceed ta rcaolvc thc

‘ in accordance with the

V. . ;::a{f:rw.’:k:;vzisiexJ.=s of the Arbitration and
‘ ~~ flarncfliaticn Act, 1996.

‘ Ofioc: is directed to send a cczpy of

this order ta the learned Arbitrator,
forthwith. Ofice is further directed to

return all the original pamrs, if any,
filed along with the petitiun to the

V’

5
petitioner to enable the petitioner to

produce before the learned arbitrator.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

*mn/–