Loading...

M/S The Guanellian Society vs M/S Khivraj Motors on 26 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S The Guanellian Society vs M/S Khivraj Motors on 26 October, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
C M P N055 2009
E

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE AJIT J GUNJA_L..Jf "
CIVEL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.5S_/'2OQ9V'_'SI: '' 

BETWEEN

M/S THE GUANELLIAN SOCIETY
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE D

PROVISIONS OF THE TAMIL NADU SOClE3'1*i1;"1S

REGISTRATION ACT, 1995,  "

HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT

GUANELLA ANBAGAM,

ACDAM PATHU.

MADURAI 625019

REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY .

CONSTETUTED A'1'1'(Z)RNEY HOLDER'  .    '

REV FRARULANANDAMS  3' W  _  -  '  PE'I'I'E'IONER

(SR1 SRINIV:%$SA.N'§ADV. EOE   LAW ASSOCIATES)

w I
M/S KHIVRAJ MOTORS _ ._ ~~
A PARENERSIIIP F1 RM REGESTERED
UNDER  PROVISIONS OF

 ACT,  ***** " "
HAVING 1'13 R1E}(iIS'EE§RED OFFCE AT

No. 10/2,  ROAD
BAI'€GPdf_20¥{E=5GQ U0  I V 
REPRESENTED BY I'£":S

'  =.MARAGII__\IO PARTNER  RESPONDENT

 ' [SR1.MAH£',S}i.?§T.ADV.}

" ., " IRIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITEON IS FILED U/S.11(5} OE THE

._ P.RBITR;A'['lON AND CONCILIATION ACT. 1996. PRAYING TO APPOINT AN
 ___ARBIT'RATOR FOR RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE
..IéE1*I--'rIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTTCE.



C M P NO.55 2009
2

THIS (EVIL MISCELLANEOUS PEHTICN COIVHNG ON FOR
ADMISSION. THIS DAY, THE COURT. MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner claims to be a Philanthropist its
main object appears to be promoting peace,
education, social weifare, needy
The said Society is established under
Registration Act, 1975. The pehtitionedrhind ordrir’
abovesaid objects in Bangalore, lands which
are reflected in the ai.which produced
aiongwith this petition. flit noticed that the

sake deed dfavdrgiurpdi4vo11e’P?r.A.t}ohn Bosco who is the President
of the petitioner Societgifj,’ Fr.A.John Bosco entered into a

Joint Developrnent Agireeinent. A copy of which is produced as

it IJacurne’nt:,.A1\§o.5A, The ‘petitioner Society it appears came to know

about ‘t’his’v«,_:trar;sa’c.tion and pursuant to a resolution dated

‘ ” 14. Zt’2.?'(d)€)7 _reso_h5ed that Fr.A.John Bosco who was the President

_ aiqthat of time. did not have power to enter into a Memo of

.__Ui?iderstanding with the respondent. In the mean time, since

was interference by the respondent, the petitioner has filed

C M P NO.55[2009
3

a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciiiation Act
in the Civil Court.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that notices are
ordered and the learned Trial Judge has granted statusrequo.

Since the Joint Development Agreement envisaged

clause, the present petition is med.

3. Learned counsel appearing for
that the purpose of estab1ishingV.th_e Society is
document dated 17.07.1987. He subniits’&_Vthat Stand in 7
question was purchased President of

the Societyfland iIi.diVidu.a1 capacity. He further submits
that the said’ E’r.A.John not authorised by the Society

to enter’ ‘into tire Joint’ Ilievelopment Agreement with the

1’Arespondenti5″Hence. a notice was issued calling upon the

respon.;:1ent..Itoragreeiiupon the appointment of arbitrator to resolve

‘tithe ~

in counsel appearing for the respondent submits

‘t_*1:at.v}’«’reA;.John Bosco had purchased the-land in his individual

b and not as a President of the Society. He further submits

J?»

C M P N055 2009
4

that the Joint Development Agreement was also in his individual
capacity and not as a President of the Society. Hence, he submits

that the petitioner does not have locus to file this petition.

5. I have perused the papers. It is to be noticedvthe
Society has come into existence on 17.07.1987.
dispute that the property in question’ ”
Fr.A.Joi1n Bosco. It is no doubt true :’t4hai;”‘thie
reflect that Fr.A.John Bosco hasgpurchasedg
President of the Society in questioViffii’;’.V’,V\:iv’}1at is the
Joint Development 3; “Development

Agreement ithe”‘Societ_v”as’ vvell as by the respondent.
The signatory to theJoint’*]§eite:1’o_pment Agreement is none other

than Fr.A.John”–Bosco.fihesdocument is signed as the President

p’Vt}1eV_péstiti_o1:er Society_,__eEvience, i am of the View that it is not

dopAen;i’o;<. the_vres'piondent to contend that the execution of the Joint

V Development' hggreéement is in his individual capacity. Since the

dispute' has arisen between the petitioner as well as the

_:"respondei1t respect of certain terms to the agreement, I am of

the Zvieivithat an Arbitrator is required to be appointed to resolve

"the"'dispute between the parties. it is also noticed that the

C M P NO.55[2009
5

petitioner issued a notice calling upon the respondent to agree
upon the appointment of an Arbitrator. The teamed counsel for
the respondent submits that they have not received the notice.

But however, as has been observed by the Apex Court in ptiadaetcase

of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. 8: Anr. Vs.

Company reported in AIR 2006 SC 2800, that .,

under Arbitration Act is not mandatorya

6. Having regard to the fact that «th_e”d.ispute*b-

petitioner and the respondent is to it be:_VVreso1ved by the

sole Arbitrator, the fo11owing:or._der_”ids

(a} The petittVio:ipis_:tzllotoéd,_ — f
{b} Mr.Kt;1§1tajéV-Ra$nai{tt.§Viix§a Bhat, Retd. District
tludgefis_appointed’as an Arbitrator to resoive
V”‘~3the__pAdispute between the parties. The Arbitrator
‘ enter reference and cause notice to the
it it x’IV’he1~~Registry is directed to communicate
it A prthis. to the Arbitrator.

Sd/-

IUDGE

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information