C M P NO.20g2009
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2009.--___
BEFORE A
THE HON'BLE MR.JUST1CE AJIT J GUNJAE AH "'
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETI:-TION.
BETWEEN I I 1 A
SR1 A A RAMACHANDRAN
S/O. LATE SR1 A G ARUNACHAIAM
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
FLAT NO G 004, NO 16/2,
CAMBRIDGE ROAD A 5 C V
ULSOOR,BA.NGAbORE--6 . _ «_ :..*PfE'FIT'EONER
{snwESA'rRYANARA_YANA, A A
AND A A A
1 M/S. JAINROUSING &'CO'NSTRUC'FION LTD
A COMRANY. REG;-STERED.UNDER.3HE
CC:!MPANIES'AC'I17.1955,AND CARRYING ON
BUSINESS AT 315/44', z;;:1'i"2:1-CROSS
8TH BLOCK, JAY"AN.AGAR§"BANGALORE--56O 082
REPRESEPJTED=BY'"EXEC'UTiVE DIRECTOR
SR1.DAND_E2::P ME1--n:A ' '
B 0 AT NO 1,1,'SO'A/EASUNDARAM STREET
.. if NAGAR, CHENNAI-1?'
2 « , 'i»'iRS.SI{_AI€f1'I~1A SATHYANARAYANA
' . " ~D/O, A<G'ARUNACHA1.AM
AG»ED._ABOB'r_.S5 YEARS
. '-.}<7LA"1"1\¥'(D__G'QO6. NO 16/2, CAMBRIDGE ROAD
' _ ULSQOR,-. _1--3ANGALORE--56O 008
3 DRGM RADHIKA DEVI
D/QLATE DR SUNDARA BA}
" = AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
, R0 166, KAMARAJ ROAD
" BANGALORE-560 042
.. "V47 SRLSAINDRAN
S/O LATE DR SUNDARA BAI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NO 166. KAMARAJ ROAD
C M P N020 2009
BANGALORE--56O 042 ... R$SPONDENFS
[Sri V B SHIVAKUMAIRI ADV. FOR R1, SRI.D.L.JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R-2,
R-3 AND R-4 SERVED}
THIS cm; MlSC.PE'1TI'iON FILED U /s.1 1(5) OF THE ARB:'FRp:IION
AND CONCiLiA'I'ION ACT. 1996, PRAYING TO CONFIRM 'rI3RM:NA'§ION
MANDATE ON HIS WITHDRAWALI APPOINT BY St}£3Sg'ji"I"1"L$'TljiO_£_\1 5 Orv».
ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF SECTION 14 & 15(2) OF THE Ac? ANDV:1'=:Tc.; »
THIS WRIT PETI'£'ION COMING ON FOR ADM§ssI,OIa..Vv '1'HIS._I_")AYL '
THE COURT. MADE THE FOLLOVVING:
9«R-?r-E3
The petitioner and the respondent. laliointlll
development agreement a1so””th_e:’ povgrer of “attorney was
executed by the petitioner lsaid agreement
was between .theftVanti«.powner,s, that is the petitioner and the
respondent is
S.uffice”~it_tolsayV’ that according to the petitioner, there
committed by the Developer. Hence, the
Miscellaneous Petition before this Court in
it CMI5 under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and
” ‘3~:i.”V:”–__Conciliatio.Ii Act. 1996, for the appointment of an Arbitrator.
A petition was accepted and Dr.Justice V.S.1\/ialimath
appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the
El
C M P N020 2009
3
disputes between the parties in the year 2005. It appears that
the Sole Arbitrator appointed withdrew himself from the
proceedings. Hence, a communication is sent by the”—.$o1e
Arbitrator to this Court indicating thathe
himself from the proceedings. The petitioners
application in the concluded proceediiigs for an
Arbitrator and this Court treated as
reserving liberty to the to civil”
miscellaneous petition for, tpappointitllentl’ Arblitratortii In these
circumstances, the present’petitio_niis .
. 3. iOn Counsel has
entered appe_aranCe for ith’evt.r:e’spon.-dents.
4. Learned counsel= appeafing for the petitioner submits
__that since. the Arbitrator has withdrawn from the
procegedingst would suggest the name of Brig.C.N.S.Murthy,
who .ar1v:’ei\;perjiericed Civil Engineer for appointment as an
_Arbiti’ator.t__” Mr«;’Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
it ” ” :4″-.re’spondents submit that the petitioner can take the assistance
Engineer during the course of arbitral proceedings
%
C M P l\§0.2()[2009
5
commencing the proceedings afresh. Hence, the following
order is passed:
(a) The petition is allowed.
(b) Justice S.Venkataraman, .
B1’ig.C.1\§.S.Mur1:hy, Retired E’;t1gineer., ere’:
Arbitrators to resoive thre_édispfiggtiafresh_.–?f;iey«’intnrr;, *’
shall} appoint an Vtias cont.efI1§}late.r.1 under
Section 11 ofthe
(0) A11 contentions are 1en§_o;5;e£1:”
(d The Reg:ivst1*yVL:Vis directeti’ to«.cfio’rnrnnriicate this Order to
the Arbitrato_rs.'”‘ V ‘
it . JUDGE
JL
