High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri L Narasimaiah vs The Managing Director And Vice … on 22 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri L Narasimaiah vs The Managing Director And Vice … on 22 August, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 

DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY 013' AUGUST 2008 ._E  [

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJITg.»GUNJAL:'1:   «

C.M.P. No.34/2007  *

BETWEEN :

Sz'i.L.Narasimaiah, - __

Aged about 57 years, V    _   _ 
S / o.Late S1'i.I.al<sh111ipat11ai.t~}h,?--. r _  ; " '
"VinayakaNi1aya", No.3034, '-  '

Gokulam Park Road,"    .  -  '
V.V.It/Iohalla,       

New residing at; '   _   ' -

No.193/26, 2?'th Cmssj j_f ._  

631 Biock, Jayanagazf, " _  = 

BaI1ga10re_-5560  » _    ...PETITIONER
 "  EE{ByEé:-i;EB,R;sundararaja Gupta, Adv.)

AND     

  The  &

'Vice 

E " " 'T 1 EA" -K,§mataka«~ State Road
'  _Tt_'*a1f1spQrt Corporation,

'K,e1*1_gVa}--AHanu1x1a,nt11aiah Road,

  .___'"Ba1"1ga3ore -~ 560 027.

V; The Chief Trafiic Manager

"And Divisional Controller,
Karnataka State Road



nu on»

Transport Corporaton,
Mysore Division, Mysore. ...RESPONDEN'I'S

(By Sri.Sub:namanya R, Adv. for
Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, Adv.)

This C.M.P. is filed under Section 11(5)' "of  ' ~ K
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996_,_ .prayin;;_;; thatjzhis , _'   V
Hoxfble Court may be pleased to appointan  " '  _ A
at the choice of the respondents to reso1:I_e'~the'~dis.pute~ 

and it is relating to vehicles in _quesi:i,on- as i the ‘
Agreement Clause or in the aitei:?iative’ this Viriorfbie
Court may appoint an Arbitrator to<r_e:~:o1ve ti1e&'dispi1tes
relating to the payment of taxes and other allied matters
as per ciause available '-the. . Ageement dated
10.05.2002, in the interest O'fiij§ISti(3i'f'aI1d'fiq?..}itj5.

This C.M.P. coziiing day, the

Court made the foiiiowgiflgz _
This petition' i Section 11(5) of the
Vv Act, 1996. The petitioner

proposes to –im*o1ze"the arbitral clause.

2. ‘Whe__ii’ tiieimatter is taken up, Mxtsubramanya

10 . ed ncsimsel appearing for Mr.Ashok Haranahaiii,

“respondents submits that Clause 44 of the

iiaéxfeerfient discloses that iniiiaily, the petitioner is

to prefer an appeai to the Managng Director, Q

/

.. 3 .,.

K.S.R.T.C., who will hear the appeal and decide whether

there is 21 dispute, which is required to be resoived by

an Arbitrator. He submits that no such appeaitéé’ ~

preferred.

3. Mr. B.R.Sund3raraja j_

appearing for the petitioner submitet’-{fiat h€§_\¥'(.)VLi1:dV ‘

prefer an appeal within three the.
Director be directed to co;r§_Sider.”‘A “two

weeks thereafter.

4. Consequently,

(a) Petition stands dispgsed ft

(*9) The petitioner is’ ‘§:oA”f1’le”‘ appea}
within. and the
of the same
withixa date of receipt of
t’ t’ 2

(C) is”? reseraveti«;_ te the petitioner to move

SP8

V

Sd/-

Judge