IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN 5HANTAN;4.~E;fQ;{J__E_)"§?€xi_2_:V"
C.M.P. NO.89/2010
BETWEEN:
Hshivashankaraiah
S/o.|ate Huchveeraiah
Aged 76 years
R/at.No.19/44,
"Srinidhi Nilaya" 47"' ',€K'~..Cr0s.s''''' *
8"' Block, Jayanagar " __ 2;] 3 x 'T
Banga|ore~82
(By ST; 3ay'ktifi9.-'aVr«V.S_§;~TPatTiE_|T;'vS_eni.or Counsef for
Sri"M.S_hivamufitif3v,..Adv..,)
AND; _
* _ M/S__.'L:"3i:?;dAu Promotes-s«& Devefoper/Builders
,No_,30/4,'46"-._Cr'0ss, 4"' Block
_ RajajinVa.ga.r,"
E' Bangareo re~~.10,""
Rep.'by itswiahaging Partner
Jeyesh «Z Shah
S/o.Zaye.rchand N.Shah
"Age§j 43' years .. RESPONDENT
E ‘Sri H.C.Shivaramu, Adv.,)
This CM? is filed under Section 11(5) of the
Arbitration and Concilliation Act, 1996, praying th’a_t”»this
Hon’ble Court may be pelased to order for the app_o’int’ment
of Sri G.Raghavendra Rao, Advocate/Retired.j;DiStr§_ct,
Judge, as Arbitrator for petitioner side to.ji*esoive’*-the
dispute between the petitioner and responde_r’i–t. and ,oi’de*r._
to nominate/appoint one Arbitrato.r~an_dA an urfn”pi’re asthird
Arbitrator to resolve the Dispute between the.._pet.i,tion_er’
and respondent, in furtherance “of¥th’e Regi’stes’eo’V’*3.oi’nt
Development Agreement,; .dateda_ 2.9.S.2.O’f).4V” ‘anti af
Supplemental Agreement, date’d..V_27.9’;2QO42, in ‘t._h’e~~i.n’cerest’-
of justice and equity.
This CMP havingnbeen .l’ie{:_ii’d :an,d’~–reserved “for orders,
this day the Court madethe ‘fovl,i;o};ving.g_~,d _
Petiti.onieb’:Vis.’V’i’he””:E)_ei:n’e-r of”the property bearing
Corporationlgl’li’€.c:..§:’3 I’do’.251/361) in Sy. No.27/1
situatedgtl ,Ka’d_ire’na’:h’e’l’liV. Village, Subramanyapuram
Mainu_*Road,”«Ai§a_dmanabhanagar, Bangalore. The
‘ ,re’s.pQ*ndeifit:””i~s._the developer. Both the parties entered
‘into a.’.rVegl.stered joint development agreement for
constifuction of the apartments in the aforementioned
property in the name and style of ‘Bindu Arpan
L/8
Apartment’. Copy of the joint development agreement
is produced at Annexure — ‘A’ to the writ pgeititiion.
Clause 12 of the said agreement revea_l.srth.avt..:__Vthe*_
petitioner is entitled to 31.10/o__Qf>super”‘b*u.i’l_t§’uip =are.a
in the residential complex to be
developer. Subsequently, ‘a.gsuvpple’ment_ary a.gr–eement=.”
was entered into between V.t–he.”‘g_pa’rtgi.es ‘dl'”i”v27V,,.{::)9.2004.
t also, it was
In the said supplen’*len_tary_.§§*a:gr:ee.rnce’ii
agreed betwe-e;n*_-theAWpart:iesVA”tihat petitioner-land
owner is e#nti_t’i*«e:d”t’o supe’r built–up area.
92. ” Acvcoifd.lngV444Vto_:ithepetitioner, the respondent
started iliegailyv-v._Io’cl%i’n’g the flats, which fell to the
5i’ié}l§’e the pe’titi–e«ner, though such flats were sold by
in favour of the 3rd parties. The
pAe.t_itio_ner”tapproached the City Civil Court by filing
.AV.A.|.\lo…’:’198/2009 under Section 9 of Arbitration and
“‘iiVC’on’iciliation Act, 1996 praying for interim order. The
}»/”>
-4-
interim order was not granted in favour of the
petitioner. Petitioner approached this Court
M.F.A. No.5386/2009. The same aiso
dismissed. There were exchangeiseeof.notticevs”e}’li::o’;’ V
3. Sri. H.C.Shiva*ra_rnu,”‘._v_i’earne’d-;.:’_eou_insei
appearing for the respondv:e’n’t_ ivffiling a
statement of objections,”He:gb§jiAn.gs.’g’to’b”the notice of the
Court that suits _have'” wife of the
petitioner seeking
pending before the
Civii of objections fiied by the
respondent’*–4.Vreveav.is7.t”ha’t’ the petitioner was aliotted
gjshagreh’of~——super bui|t~up area along with
share in the land with
proportionat;e’V; car parking slots and that the
V’*«.__Vresponde:nt is allotted remaining 68.90% share of
A :.”s.u’pe.r”bui|t~up area along with proportionate undivided
i/5
share in the land and car parking siots. The contention
of the respondent is disputed by the petitioner.
4. All these facts clearly go to sh_oW
disputes have arisen between the parties.– a.re..:i”n=
serious dispute. The agreerri’ent;’_’cohtAa»inst
clause. Ciause No.28 of tbhefiagreév-rn_entV that if
the disputes arise out ofthe.’fag’reem’ent..,in_.iduestion,
they shaii be refeirred “t.o’nftx»iiovV.%_vranrbitrators to be
nominated by*Le’a.ch iof i3:§rtije.sv:’fo§r adjudication and
the appwointed would choose an
umpEre’…_8yp “said clause, petitioner issued
stai;u’tory not.i_t_;eV’ap’pointing an Arbitrator on his side
upon the respondent to appoint an
otftheir side. However, respondent has not
chhosehato ‘appoint an Arbitrator.
//5
Having regard to the aforementioned facts, it is
clear that the disputes have arisen
parties and the said disputes will haveyytcfbe’
through arbitration as agreed
Arbitration Clause thatVe,ach””of: the’?
parties shall nominate_ on,e””A:rbif.}3,.t9r, the matter
on hand, as aforeintientioneid,_.:4,:,Vth’e.”‘__’petitioner has
nominated viz., Sri
District Judge,
residevntfi Layout, II Cross,
Sa njay”N_a’gia r,
T>_.rje.._AreAs’pon—-d’ent has not nominated any
iience, this Court appoints Arbitrator on
be.ha|f’,oi’Ittn’e respondent. Accordingly, the following
order vis:’made:–
)4
Sri G.Raghavendra Rao, #1, Judicial Officers’
Layout, II Cross, Sanjay Nagar, Banga|ore–94,,,_an_dSri
Ramarao Kulkarni, # 20/13, 19″‘ ‘c’
Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-_:1.0,__4are”‘a”p.p_eiri’te’d,V
Arbitrators, to resolve the ;”1disipu*te
parties. The learned ArVt;–i.t:retors’l’ s__hall_he-1,ina’n’imously”~it
appoint/nominate the,_Umpireethilrdcfxroitratori of their
choice. The learned Umpire, on
receipt of a,_- oi:’=A__A enter upon the
reference, piartiles and then proceed
to accordance with the
provisions of and Conciliation Act,
1996;,
V Cfficei.ii:s_1..directed to send a copy of this order to
each learned Arbitrators, forthwith. Office is
,Aforth.erA’:’directed to return all the original papers, if
it filed along with the petition to the petitioner to
W
-3″
enable the petitioner to produce before the iearned
Arbitrators.
Petition is disposed of accordingly./V.__
*vp/Ck/–