High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri Murugesh C vs M/S Meru Cabs Co Pvt Ltd on 29 July, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shri Murugesh C vs M/S Meru Cabs Co Pvt Ltd on 29 July, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED "ms THE 29"' my OF JULY,   

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN S:ff--i."\..I5§!'i"#\I_§3A'é'7-»f4)'Uij-aVR"=.1,_*é

WRIT PETITION NO.29V3f'6~{} OEEOO9 _(GM4vRES) :3
WRIT PETITION .'3N...On29'_3'€VJ'3 2009 (GM--R~ES)

IN WRIT PETITION I\viC3;~"§.S?36_;fV1;--__['L:9_aO(:3x9v_  

BETWEEN   ~ 1'

Murugesfyc   1I.;._ 3 * V

Aged a:bOuEt"33Ef,vea'i?3' 

S/0 Ch't:nnappa'iy'«1n_V * _ '  

No.189,'-GoI.taha.IIi'«.'Q  '

Anjanapura Post  '

Uttarahalii Hobli    '
Ban.»g.;atOre~560"G6__2. ..PetitiOner

. :'(ay,"S::1E:i;rt§n.._D' Rozaréo, Adv., for
 __S*r'; aJ'aga'd,_E:es?~..a '3.N., Advs., for Alternative Law Firm)



 M/s,'I':1eru Cabs Company Pvt, Ltd.,

A. ,(F0r'merty V~Link Taxis Pvt, Ltd.,)
V Having its office at

 "No.90/4, 2"' Floor



ORDER

During the course of arguments, iegairned

advocates appearing on both the sides _

matter be referred to arbitration and”**.:rj’:EateV”.Voifi.v”

arbitration be at Bangalore. it israiis’o..iag’iie’e’d:”by”Vbiogthgi

the parties that the Arbitra’i._iT~r.iV_buna!Vshaiii’.:Vde.§:i’de
question as to the ,.–existen~e-eh’f-_a’i’id va”i’id.i.ty_.:§of the
agreement of arbitration with other

questions.

In__yViewao~f1’Vrthe’afo’r’e’rne_Vn’tioined submissions, it is
not net-,es’sary to go into merits of the

matter. 2

the iiii “ease of the petitioners that the

i”a.g’i;eeiAn*i’er,.3;V___in’:;’q’uestion is obtained by the respondents

V «V by “‘i:iiay~Vi:ngv “fraud and that therefore matter need not

‘:g,b”e’iisentsfor adjudication to arbitration.

LA

M5,.

accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1995. The sétténg of the Arbitral Tribunal wou.iEjdf:b*ei”aVt

Bangaiore.

The Arbitrai Tribunal Ls_hai.i..4éA.f’deci’cfe’*–:”ori».._JVE.t1s:’

jurisdiction first. Which n’.:ea.__ns, t’i*.e”o_uesti’o.nv_re!a,tinvg

to existence and the valEdEty_!4_i:o-fetaiibitrationlagreement
shat? also be decEdeo”*~b”y.AtiA1eggeaiérnsecipi’Arbitrator aiong
with the other _l*SS__U€s,-“”‘Th:ifs creek smgbiinot be treated

as a prece__dent_ fjtit’u re,

Wrétaioetitfléio aVr:eVV’Vdisp’o_sed of accordingiy.

t Sd/-‘-‘
…..

V*ck/1’1l{~._