High Court Karnataka High Court

Parkway Developments Pvt Ltd vs Ideb Projects (P) Ltd on 6 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Parkway Developments Pvt Ltd vs Ideb Projects (P) Ltd on 6 October, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY or' ocroeergzfooéiepeee. pp

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTIC-EMAJIT   

CMP No.212 or5«2o-as
BETWEEN:   

Parkway Developments Pvt.Ltd.',- . _

A Company incorporated under"  :4 V _

The Companies Act aI1d.hav¥.i_ng_' ;   on r 

Its Registered Office at Unit I\C2fo;L'-:'O9.,_ "    

2nd Floor, Richmond Towers, _  ' . V' 

No.12, Richrnond 'Road, 1:   " f. 
BangaIore»5.6:O 025?; - jg    Q . ...PETITIONER

(Sri Vijayasf1~ani:ifs.r_,   M / s.Kjng &
Partridge, {Advise}  '  _

AND:

IDEBV Projeots _(P;~ .I_§td;','- 'C
A Company incorporated under

 " «-The .CoI2g1pan.jes Aefand having

Itsvfiegisteredflffice at 91" and 10*"

C'  l_"ieor',' S'1g_§n1a.Vh'Software Tech Park,

No.'7,__Whifefie}d'Main Road,
Opp, Varthxnj Lake,

.;-- _ Bang"a1o1*e~580 O66,
  'Represented herein by
_ V' V  its Managing Director,
C  "I\/1r..I_'*I.S.}3edi. ...RESPONDENT

C’ Aravlnd Kamath, Adv. for ALMT Legal}

the shareholders agreement clearly stipulated–.__ that

various decisions must be made by consen’t«,of-fbo’th

shareholder groups. But however, the said

ran into rough weather, .ir1asInu_ch .; celtain

differences had arisen between ;’the pevi:iti’on’e1~a’nd’=.,

respondent. The petitioner;”~,ha\ring_: the
differences between thewiiresépondent
pursuant to a letter proposing to
terminate shareI1o:i’dé:rS.._..,V:agreement. The
respondent, it said communication,
termination of the agreement.

The petitioner,’ to the arbitral clause in

the sharehoid_ers.iagreeérnent, issued a notice, calling

‘”‘«.,1A;ponthe respondent to agree for the nominee and

su’u_m’it”di’ep.ute to the arbitrator as per C1ause-8 of

the »agreve-rrI.e,nt, Since, the said request was not adhered

~ toby therespondent, the present petition is filed.

Mr.Vijaya Shankar, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that having regard

V

(2) Justice K.Shivashankar Bhat, former Judge,

No.40 I / 29, 12*’ Main, RMV EXten”s–i»Qn,

Sadashivanagar, Bangalore 5600804′ _» ‘_ _

Justice R.Gururajan, former Judge;Cfhitifavptifaf

Appts., N0.504, ‘sn Har:=;h’:”<Vv:'Jie?i13a:\%:5m%1é:jog;.,e '1V5Athj«

Cross, Maileswaram, 1?»e111.V:c§,faI0re:V!':':-€:"i£').OO'3

appointed as Arbitrstots. _ They tliffn shall
appoint an L{u1.ipire.'_VAVas'VA vt"p1e_r.vVVt'{:lause of the
share holders agfeentent_ ' 1» ..

(3) The reference and

[4Vj”Regist1yVV.’t§)._:e’offim~unieate this order to the

5

. A, arbitrsttors

Q Astarltihshhtcéivisposed of accordingiy.

sd/~
IUDGE