IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANG£3.LQ_§?:Evv'4
DATED TI-Iis THE 9TH DAY 0? APRIL_2:{3{§9: ~
PRESENT;
THE I--~i{)N'BLE MR. RD. 13:NA:. nBLy its Mangers,
c R...{}}<miLHéouse, 'B' Block,
I35 F.l;6o:*,s'8th Miic:-2,
V' flfissarghatta Cross,
' _£S3'_"é:¥.wé--; Tumktlr Road,
Bangalore. ..Respon<3€nt
This WA. is filed under Section 4 of the
High Court Act, 1961, praying to Se: asirie {he"'ortie:f_' dated
3.10.2008 in W.P.Ne.12161/2008 passed by:"'t1:e_:'§eémfi'e6t'»
Single Judge.
This WA coming up for "
Court this day, SABHAHIT J., passeC¥V_'ti1eA'fc311e'e§i;1g: «. '
AX
This appfial 33 _p6fit;Oner in
W.P.No. 12161/2008 beizigt order dated
3.10.2008, whegfeifiwtiie has declined to
interfere Witlfi" ' the Permanent Lek
Afialath, anti dismissed the writ
petition 1
2. 'If15;e'a;3pe3;ia:1tV_Vhere;V§r: filed W.P.N0.12161/2008 seeking
the order passed by the Permanent Lek
éated 30.7.2008. It is averted in the
writ pe'£itie'I:i "flat the petitioner is a registered company
Besiness of service provider for teie-calling and
feiaiixeci aetivities. The respondent is a company aecrediiedVT Reliarlcte Company and Iegetered company, which is
Kr’
éoiflg teie services business through the s13b~oi:€i’1′::r5é;;.4;i:o:*s.
The petitioner entered into a contract
Communications Ltd. for providing””servic-es _ofi ‘te_1e:-céiiiiiig. 91′ V
The Reliance Commuxiicatiozis
respondent as their identity. ._ tot’ entexei
into 3. contract with thev –s;eIvioe”o11″}i{J.5.20(}7
which Came into effect ‘contract was for
a period of one the writ petition.
The petitiorzler its service of tele–¢::al].ing
and such” as envisaged in the
agreement’ ‘ijihe iiaiied to perform their part of
the e.g’eei13et1t” iii paying the petitioner as age-ed
‘in, oo;1t1″a.et;” “”” The respondent after completion of
providing leads to the petitioner
i it As per the ageement, the respondent
«sifxetlid haeei’ paid the bills, but the respondent deiayed the
anci has not paid the ozltetanding bills. The
deliberately with an intention to create confusion
-tieed to eolleetively make a consoliéated payment in respect
K?’
of éifilerent bills which were raised on different date:3V_:f:}:z;’~each
month. The respondent due to breach of _:€::f
contract is liabie ta pay 3 sum 01′ R’s,A1,_9}.,8_.i’2;45’_jo:£i”:the 1″1t:fs§1ig4
bill and is due of Rs.2,68,0I8/– o:;:’eti:1e&”eec1’a”te:”ot:”‘ .
Writ petition. The petitioner negetjatee ietters: %’
for the reasons fer delay and and sat
for reconciliation ef diI’f’erehees_’ ‘;f)igi.é3AV:i7(3pI¥3SCI1{8iiV€S of
respondent. Thee’-_’§;fetiti<}ne15:':: requests for
discussions, V respond positively
and iefii &'t;"%1:eVV..peiitioner issued a iegai
notice, txfhicix' r'esp0ndez1t. Therefore, the
petiuonel' :i'iie'd__4a "%3.e.1'bre the Pemlanent Lek Adalath
'..seekiI1g§;. for seffiemefitv and compmmise between the
pet:Zticqf1_e1* ..a21(i«…:4esfpor1dent or in alternative for recovery of
outetehdmg' wzéth interest and to decide the dispute
GE; h' The Permanent Lok Adalath conducted
1 eeVeCi'i1}g$" from 1.2.2008 and subsequenfly till 31.7.2008.
Ale-pfiieramiee could not he arrived at and Permanent L0}:
raised 13 issues, for detexqtnirxatien of issues Neg!
\.5
and 2 for consideration as preiimizlafis issues; 'xjihe
Permanent Lek Adaiath heid that in View
Arbitration Clause in the e.g'eemeI.1t; the 1:i:a1;tefli'e i'eq"uii"ed fif A'
to be decided under the Arbitratjeg ee::¢n.iae'g§.gs;ct,%
1996 and accordingly Passed "Grde§t5' 'flee writ
petition dated 30.'7.:20C§8 21:16' eii"$'pute between
the parties is oniy contI'e{etA'§i§sl"'iI°::" requires to be
erbitrated by a ,spee:e§_iic Section 5 of
the Arbitratiogiefid 1.996.
3. Learned _$i}?i;g1Ve_{}1J.d’gea”e1fter.’considering the contentions
of the fer the petitioner held that
she iznpu’g:1ed drdef dees not suffer from any error or
vPem3.anent Lek Adalath has referred the
pafties*§’.__ te””t}1_e__ rit§§{Iator under arbitratiel} clause in the
Vagreen:£ent”ei11ce 3:10 compromise couid be arrived at, the
H passeei by the Permanent Lek Adalath I’€f€’ITiI1g the
‘he the Arbitrator to workout their remeéy is justified
View of the existence of arbitration Clause in the
\../*~
agreement in ¥’6Sf)€{3t of which the dispute has in
View af Section ‘? of Legal Senrices Authorities ‘
impugned arder is justified and doesjxot sz1’fié1″—-f3?01ii’V€i:{‘0r.3:31’»_
illegality and it is open :0 the pefiigiormt :’£o <g'c)*'~ 3:45:16
process in Eerms of the procedzj:'e:_Vas ¢<3ntcrnpié3.téé;iv«1,1I;.der the %'
Arbitration Act and accQrdh1gly___?:é1is§_mi§sec.i 1th§:_w;{;it petition
by ordér datsd 3. 3{).f2{3(}$'§I.' B32313; '4"a=gg:f1';eved by {he said
order, the petitiantzr iippeai. There is
a cieiay of 19
4. We on record.
5. The méitgriai ‘§fCC(.%i7’3 would dearly sizow that the
4.,’g:Vi.L,eL %%%%% __N0.20{)i2/2008 filed by the
Ap::tit;i;2,:”:_¢1*,{ herein for settleznant was ragistered by
me%% =E§i§:*.mé;fi{§:;t Adaiath, Legal Services Authority,
Banga1< $:=<=;. '1 ,S.i'1fi<:e no compromise could be £i.1"I'i;V(':d at, the
}:9é;;21ia:1r.§:ntvV"I.0k Adaiath framed the issues that arise for
_de*£:éf;§niIiafion and answered issue N05,}. and 2 by hoiding
that in View of the existence of arbitration ciausa in thti
M}
the czrder passed by the Permanent Lois: Adalath in
the writ petitien is justified and does not
error or iliegaiity and dares not warrar.1tAa:;y ir§:étfere3'1Cé"-Vinij' A'
exercising the Writ jurisdiction éu:1é§._ii'l'i is' bpelz n«.*%¥.Z}'..fi1T3"'."_(§'
petititmer/appeilant herein
terms of the procedure wu}I1der the
Arbitratian Act. in vicar" the arbitration
clause in the agrfesrzignt the dispute that
has arisen it is ciear that the:
Pezmanerzi’ ri_5t” iiave decided the matter
on Adalath W33» justified in
referring. the ‘jE–:o A£hé’*'”A1″bitrator as per the arbitration
t:’}r:«=;._1A,z.se.’:r_i:g’~”1 Aagrééfliefit. We do not find any error or
Grder as to Cali for ixiteribrence in
‘–._.,t.his cqziriiif-fafzpeal. Accordingly, we hoid that there is no
nierit in ilapptial and pass the foilowing:
GRDER
K “The writ appeal is dismissed 0:1 merit.
\\//1
in Vi€W of dismissal of the writ appeal, f:16t-
it
nacressary to cansider the appficatien for L’ H
delay of £9 dsxys in filing the appeal ‘_
”
% Sd/1,
I/f/’ V’
Web I1Ec>st:Yg?é5/ .
_ Bkm.