-1...
IN Tfifi HIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 24'-"' my 0:: JUNE, 2oog..II "
BEFORE
THE Momma MRJUSTICE S;;AWBi:)'U:, mesa
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS P5111169; A:I~':o.34 2:3 3
i
M/S LAKSHMI CARRIERS . , _ ._
NO.3G17, 19TH MAIN, VIJAYA NAGAR
mo STAGE,MYSOREV57D£317___ V »
REPBYTHEMDCVP_v1U£§Al_I -
s/0 LATEVENKATAKF€I.SHNAIAHi
AGED ABOUT 42_.Y:EAR$ ~ ~ ' PETm0NeR
{By Sri k..sHiRf:§AR:"'s; p,'§';\$z'I3AjvKu:~a}gxR; ADV.)
£419
THE KARNATAKA STA'?E RQA9 _ '
mamspom" CC;':RP€.}RAT1.QNz_ ' '
CENTRAL OFFICE' '-
K.H.RQ:j%D, SHANTHINIAGAR ,
BANC:A_LOR_E:St">0 027 *****
REPRESEENTED as<I.;Ts
'--.VMAa:AG1r~;5._v;3igEc:oR RESPONDENT
' ~. F.={ByI'SfI'I_i3._S¥*I?3iI¥I1?-£APPA, ADV.)
4 THIS CIVIL MISCELLANESOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11
GFATHE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TC)
' f3~.P§§I.3I.N__.{ AN ARBITRATOR ANS REFER THE MATTER TOF IBISPUTE
BETWEEN THE PEFTITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS FOR
I *A{3.IUDICATIC)N LEAVING ALL CONTENTIONS OPEN.
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON FOR
" u:<:iiVR'£i)ERs "ms DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
,2...
ORDER
The petitioner has flied this Civii.
petition under section 11(5) the j,Annitraimi.:,.. §§;iT
Conciliation Act, 1995 for appo_intmén_t”of an.si:.:;;:r;:oi- ta f.
resoive the dispute arising out “of:_’agreeniant’ at Ainhexurs
B dated 26.05.2003.
2. The pgtitioher pii.r§tiant to a tender
notification by it had offered to
provide:vi2″busés:v on hire basis. As the
private 06pérstorsV: new buses as per the
conditions of’*ti1e’ notificstish, the petitioner had purchased
-*’-izwo of-‘the’ bus. The body of the bus was
“‘–.re:i.1iired itzonstructed as per the specifications,
instniCtion.Afilsnitfii requirements of the respondent.
‘Therefsrefthe rapondent had issued a letter of intent
“rijated”«–.24.04.2003 directing the petitioner to show the
__”–«1pro’of0for having purchased the chassis within 45 days. As
the letter of intent at Annexure-A, the petitioner
purchased chassis and entered into an agreement dated
26.05.2003 (Armexure~B) with the rmpondent. As per the
Ki
-3…
ietter of intent, the buses were required to be
the petitioner within 3 months from the
referred to above. At the time of constrocti_o’n”o§:Vtvhe”:hodyve. “‘
of the buses, the officials of the resporadeht’were::’reoo’lteb;.:l.j«
to inspect the same. Howeikef, the oflic;ieisi._:v«ofH
respondent had submitted ti1e_..4fi;I’i>a;i”VrueE¥.i’t§;3.2Oo3.
However, due to the de~rai.$ito oia%tiale i;5:a:t the rmonaent,
the buses weresnot pLlt”‘int¢[ §’i3.e§fetliohv.:.i’ii1roediateiy, out
the)! startec:i1£3:–t£i;8t2ti€}’3”. Therefore, the
respondent of R52 [aims for late
arrivals?__enti* oeoe:t_ies; As per the agreement at
Annexure?-8; the eiéretequired to be provided at the
_ oussstend. as the oonlnaencement point of the journey. The
end at the bus stand of destination point of
the officials of the respondent made
. the””‘;xeti.tione’°r’to provide the buses at the depot which
,.:wo.u_id benomaliy 10-15 Kms away from the bus eane.
bractice was adopted by the officials of KSRTC in
-lvorider to pick and drop the conductor from the depot where
he has to report to the duty. Further, the respondent
never allowed the bus of the petitioner to be parka at the
-4-
bus stand or depot. There are differences between the
routes provided by the KSRTC and the actua! dista_n;:;e.4:’oEV_
the routes. The difference between Bangaioreffiyso-re;
Donimaiai is about 40 ions for 2 buses which it
in the said routs. This has resulted in_-..totaui*..,ioss’*-toVithegri
petitioner to the tone of ns.s..2o léiths. A the”
agreement, the respondent ougvhtoto _Vhav’e*pta_iti tire hire
charges within the stipufited ‘tiiitfthe respondent
was delaying the peyment_.for_ theV._roaso’ns ‘best known to it
resulting in loss ‘:*i’hve—-VV’respondent had
failed to Hemount and settie the
account ofthepetiti’oinors’.–.._::”Therefore, petitioner had no
other aiternatiiie not to ‘invoke the arbitration clause
‘flp”rovid’ed Annexureeéi agreement by issuing notice as
r’eqiiireudr* provisions of Arbitration and
conciii«o_tion~~’§£tiV’ dated 12.9.2007 caning upon the
.4_f.fi;j’««.respondén.t_AA3to appoint an arbitrator. The respondent has
f”aii_ed,_to–‘ take steps to appoint any arbitrator to resoive the
‘ …_'”g3″i_sp£:te. That is why the petitioner has filed this petition
v°»»._.’}for appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the
K»
.r~”‘i
-5-
dispute. The respondent has not filati any statggfriéré-t”rj”;a§’v-.V.
objections.
3. Learned counsel for the as”
clause-39 of the agreement Vbzv.~ic:2i\._rjneA)'<"Ls:r__e;..'E-,,V
may be referred to, an &V.r-ari5i:trét¢_r, ' hameh:/i, Sri
M.Nara~/anappa, Chief KSRTC,
residing at Nq.,1g15_O, Kengeri
Sateiiite Tewriz; t
4. in the AV!rd’§:tj’j:v>:f’trg4é–A§fer§:§aid discussion, I pass the
renewing; t t t
Mlscelianeous Petition is allowed.
“V47″_~$ri’x~.,’iiflarayanappa, Chief Traffic Manager
t (Rem, KSRTC, residing at ~o.11so, Raiiway
: Parallel Road, Kenaeri Sateflite Town,
Bangalore – 560 060, is appointed as the Sofie
Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the
parties arising out of the agreement dated
tr
-I
25.11.2082.
(3)
(4)
(5)
r”*mx!’.j
-5-
Learned Arbitrator on receipt of a copy4jcf:’t!§Tis.s_
order shalt enter upon the
notice to the parties. .__and*””‘;irrér:_§§£d _’_AiVn ‘
accordance with the rcv$a!§’in§V:”rthé?1vr.j
dispute. V V _
Registry is;__directed:VV’jt9_ sgnd..3r.;’§pyVvf%of this
order to thé”iéa.r_na_d 5Arfii’i:r§f$t§’Ir’–.. _
The _partiess.””areifAdir’a§te§§ ibefiar thdr own
1 gos:té;._
Sdfw
Iudge
