High Court Karnataka High Court

Salvos Publicities vs Real Image Media on 30 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Salvos Publicities vs Real Image Media on 30 October, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy


_ 1 _

1% THE HEGH ceaaw QF KARNATAKA AT BANGg@aRg f: ,

aAT£a THIS THE 30″ DRE OF 0C§aBaR,_éaQ§[=i

BEFGRE

TEE HON’BLE MR.JUsTI:E RAfi,Mog§N RgaDY.=”x

C.A.NO.14/2909 EN §§fpwN@.ia§i2Q§§*aW””s

BETWEEN:

SALVGS ?UBLICITIES PVT. L$sf_j
A CQMPANY REGISTERED afibaa; ‘.:_ ‘2
was COMPANIESJAC§,E9Sfi HAVZNGA*7»_m
zrs OFFICE AT A.R,fi HQSSE, moggg ,
1″ CRGSS, HHEB2ERs%RQfifi;_”a.; * ~
mmwmimmUx”3. ‘V”‘
BANGALORE 56QTG057″‘ _
RE§. BY ET$.§I?$QT®R’g V_
SR.V.RRUNACfiAL%Mn g *_’.

S/Q N.v.vALL:Ap9ANw* f~

L. V. . Q’ . A??LECRNT

– (BY mks 3aNnARAMa3:gy & sUNmARaMuRTHy;

%Lk}W;% k

R£A£ ;MfiQ&»aE§:$ TECH%QLO$EES
yazvgra iifilffifi

‘ _Eli STREET;”E%LAGI maaag

‘$HENfikE~A§§

‘ “=a3 ITS BEQAL & CQMPANY sacgaragy

=u§$€ S§i.SRE¥ARU LAW FIRMS} Z

»§;xU2§L1 xazsagag
,A–_: H R£3PGN§Efi?

M

W 3 w

THIS APPLECATEQN ES $311,313 axis 8 05* ism,
;2.RB:*§RA-‘:’I<;1xs AN?) CCMIILEATEQN ACT 19:95 pRAy:rJ;;V._f;.~-..
§1S§V§ESS “mg; PETZ’ES1{‘)N ZN ?xLTERNfi,TI’v’E z3IRE:§f1fi_um;E:’–.
P£’E’ZTI€}I’JE1Rf(}?i3O¥’~§EZNT m GET THE ALLEGED cL_:;_:Ms~V.’ifE~~:3__”
$3 RESOLVED sy ]5’aRBITR§aTC}R mi TERMS GE” CL_?§US.I;’3…1’8 ‘

OE’ DOCUMENT NC}. 1.

THIS AP?;LICA’E.’IO?% comma; 01>; Ej.R fj.G’22:Dégs–«.E;-ms

mm, was ceum MADE THEE FQLLGWEM3;

o R D
This application. iS ~fi§~ Che teagqnaemt

company” for an ordet” to’ éithéfi ¢di3miss the

campany petitiQh.Qr:ifi tfie aE:ernafive direct

the peti{ién%: £5 h§ve :£Bé alleged Claim
resolved by=én §fbit;ét@r in terms of 033339
18 of DQcuménfi NQ§lf,V

umAV2J’?hié,appléééti0n is apposed by filing

s§3fi3ménfwQf o§§ectiGns dated 6¢@.2S§9 of the

“pet:tiQnim$ }Acreditaz, respoadent in the

»MT 3§§1:cat:Gn, intermalia cantenéing that tha

“afhitration clause ii: the agreement does rmfi

Eflx

M 3 ,

invest in the firbitrato: the jurisdictiQfi”§f ”

fihis Court under Sectien 4é3{e}_»cfi”,€fié.

Companies Act, to wind~up @tfi@L}$p§licént,

§
cempany.

3. Heard the lea;m@d mCéfiné3l Est’ the
parties. fhe tezm$ off {hé5 mémérésdum of
unde:standing,_d®g;m@fit§N@1i;*fihQu§h provides
for arbitration éi thegdi5?fiL@$ between the

parties, ineV§tf§ei%$S{rfi§fid; in fact, cannot
itaelf in§égtih £fi$»§f$i%ratQ§ the pewex ts
wind mg ,§h% u%Om§afiyI Although, leaxned
ééfiflfieififéi fiflg ééfiificant points oat is the

nofi«3bs@&té&”¢£au3e in the Rrbitration and

x”$§fiCiliatiGfi_”SC€, I am mot impressed. The

*~5:v;;a;:’_1sdic£i.;:§z under Sectiam z2;z1:s(_3> 011″ me Act

‘>dafih¢:_§y cmnsent Qf parties be vegtéd in an

§;,?*i

_ 4 W
arbitrator and hence I deciine to acc@pt the

said submiasism.

The application is withaut me:it.%fi& iéf*

accordingly rejected.