High Court Karnataka High Court

Mrs Annie Koshy vs M/S Print And Imaging Solutions … on 1 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mrs Annie Koshy vs M/S Print And Imaging Solutions … on 1 August, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
 

IN THE HIGH comm' op' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE; 

DATED THIS THE 1» DAY OF AUGUST 20935" %i13e J:   =

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE Aarr J;e13NJ.§L f j  X

C.M.P. NO.39]V20§_)8"'*'v- *

BETWEEN :

Mrs.Am1ieKoshy, '  :
Wife of late Mr.M.K.Ko_shy,   _  '
Aged about '78   1 , V'
Residing at No.26,   ' _ _ . 
Benson Cross   »   
Benscn Town,   

Bangalore --~ 560  'T.

Represented; byh-er' '     _
Power of Attorney Holdezfp    
And son Mr.Jude Koshy.  --  ...PETI'I'IONER

(By $jri;Jay11é1  
 *  _  Advs.)

 . 'Pvf/S.Print.44and-Ezlgietgng
'?'$olL1tions  ,
* "A{C{)_fi1pany incarpoxated
 ;Ur1de;I*.. the Provisions of the
"  Indiai1,Co:;upanies Act, 1956

   'Ax1d~hai:ir1g its registered

Offiee,,atNo.12, Embassy

  V  Fiat No.14,
  Cross Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.



i "the schedule to the agreement.

Also at:

M/S.P1-mt and Imaging
Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

No.46, Millers Tank Bund
Road, Bangalore - 560 052,
Represented by its
Director.

(By M/S.Ahmed Law Assts, Advs,)i'i.e

This C.M.P. is filed unde_rf~Seetion "1--1._of' the
Arbitration and Conciliation. «Act; 1996, praying that this
Hon'b1e Court may be pleased. to  ..a.r:y fit person
as the sole Arbitrator to ad'ii1d'ieate"'~~aIiéi;Vdecide the
disputes and difleteizoes betweenthe-.petitioner and the
respondent in  with the V temination of the
tenancy of the «-rézspondeiit  '~.tk::e petition schedule
property, paymei1t,. of » ' 'arrears 'of rent, mesne
profits/damages;..eoi:1pen--sation,'  of service tax
and such (5ther"di$putes as"a1ay_ be raised by the parties
and grant Cost of  interest of justice.

This o.1\}i.a mingioniar admzss' ion, this day, the
Court made the foilowizig:

ORDER

is under Section 11 of the Arbitration

. -..CoI1cfliaif§on Act, 1996. The matter arises in the
it ‘ ~ .. é 4: xfo!1To*’afing. jrnaxmerz
petitioner is the absolute owner of the

«jflproperty in question, which is more fully described in

The respondent is

V’

.. 3 ..

engaged in the business of photocopying and colour

printing in the schedule proeprty. The petitioner

the respondent entered into registered lease deed _

15th April 2002. The respondent wae>AA>induct.eei’..A’.:£i$: eii 3
tenant in the schedule property
five years from 15.03.2002.

produced at AI1nexure’A’. 3

2. The case of the peueé5ncr*. lease has

expired and the reepoflcientiis”eoiitiiiiiingxaefieiiiixonthly

tenant. rent paid by
the respondeiat ‘was 1.,O7,148/-. The said

sum is paid in .;..m; 2o(27%;e Af£er the expiry of the said

QfV.f1veyears ‘”,””the petitioner issued a notice

. of 3 copy of which is produced

_i’at’.’\rmexL1}e ‘B’. 08.01.2008. Pursuant to the said

‘ ” xthe of the respondent was terminated

V called upon to pay a sum of Rs.6,42,888/-

interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a.. and

for éelivery of possession along with me-sne

girofits as well as service tax. The said notice was not

e

– 4 –

responded. Hence, the petitioner invoked the arbitral

clause under the lease agreement and issued a
on 14.03.2008, a copy of which is ”
Annexure ‘F’ proposing for appoinment of his 1 1
in terms of clause 14 of the lease .
is served on the respondent bni: he ,
responded to the said notice,
nominee or suggesting msjfiymg

petition. 0

3. Notice _’ eras issued to the
respondent. and represented

by a

it that when the matter was

of notioe on 27.06.2008 this Court

that none appeared for the respondent. But

two weeks time was gamed to file objects)’ ns.

. __ fitter, the matter was listed before this court on

…d«dks2.5.d07.200s. This Court also observed that the counsel

“for the respondent was not present but however as a 4

j

.. 5 ..

dispute between the parties. Indeed it is also to be

noticed that notwithstanding the fact that the

Deed is terminated, the arbitral clause would

any decision is required, on this po.i_n”tV,»_o11ct_.=; to id

the Judment of the Apex Court
Agricultural coopxmxeflné A
V/S. Gains Trading 692
and in the case of
Ltd, V/S. reported

7. order is passed:

(a) Peiioggn
«Murthy, Retired District Judge,
d i _ 7m Main, HAL 11 Stage, Indiranagar,
ii ‘ — 8 is appointed as an a.rbitrator to
_’ ii ” the dispute inter so between the
(C) Let a copy of this order be communicated to

e the Arbitrator. %

X

(d) The Arbitrator, on receipt of the order

enter upon a reference and proceed to ”

of the matter.

SP3