W P NC).31415/2009
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAEA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009
BEFORE _
THE HON'BL,E MR.JUS'I'ICE AJIT J GUNJAE If' I
WRIT PETITION NO.31415/B009 I
BETWEEN
SR1 M C RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE C1-IANNEGOWDA .
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
RESIDING AT NO. 215, BALAJI ROAD, '
11 BLOOKTHYAGARAJANAGAR _
BANGALORE 560028 A V PETITIONER
{Sri VISHWANATH R HEGDE.IAIIi'{V.) I A
AND
1 sR1ARAJAsHEKAR..
S/OIAP2-qU"RAO;'iI:.; .
AGED ABOUT 41~YEARs~,. _
RESI1:-ING AT ':"4/ 14,. SRD CROSS,
SAMEERAPURA; BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE "SGGOO4
2. .3; RAVEESH "
.. .15/O'~RALAsAPPA HEGDE
~ AGED ABOUT 41''YEARs.
. A REBIDINGAT NO. 3. 5TH CROSS.
'-SI*LANKARAPURA
BAN'GALORE»~'560004
3 1 K INDRESE
"- FA'.['HER"'S NAME NOT KNOWN
MAJOR, SOLE ARBITRATOR
I O NO.--- 17, KEMPANNA ROAD,
' ..zMARUTISEVANAGAR BANASAWADI MAIN RAOD,
BANGAIDRE 560033 RESPONDENTB
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
I' :rEE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.
17.9.2009 PASSED BY THE R3 ARBITRATOR IN THE PENDING
W P NO.3l4l5/2009
2
ARBITRATION CASE VIDE ANX--N AND ETC.
TEES WRIT PETITION COMENG ON FOR PRELIMINARY IEIEARING.
THIS DAY. THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Petitioner and Respondent Nos.1 and:
one P.S.Lakshrneesh Babu started”bu«sin;ess”I«.gin”:*Laiid
Development and Marketing : as 2-;lsor’laterg
formed a company in the and ‘style.
Associate Planters and :’D,eve1oper*s..:Pvt:..Ltd. ‘Suffice it to say
that a dispute has arisen’beti.veen_::tEeie…petitioner and the
respondents. Hence, anOArIbi’trato’r.I.O’i_s_appointed to resolve the
disputeIgAbe.’tween’Vthe ‘I A claim petition is lodged
thereafter.”‘*.’__’Ii’he I”resApo*n:d1ents made an application for
amegndnient of theficlairri petition. It is significant to note that
petitioner filed the objections, the application for
But however, the petitioner did not
ques”ti.on–.f’the”‘ said amendment. Thereafter, amended claim
filed incorporating certain things. The petitioner
._lr*a_liscd’: a preliminary objection before the Arbitrator regarding
-»aeeeptanee of the amended claim petition. The Arbitrator has
proceeded to dispose of the preliminary objection. The
X
W P No.314i5/2009
3
Arbitrator has observed that the claimant is directed to delete
paragraphs 18 to 21 from the claim petition (amendevd)V_p’a.nd.vfile
the amended petition on or before a particul_ar«..’date;’—-
petitioner was aiso directed to file a counte1’»*-onpllor before”.
5.10.2009. The said order is questioned iinthiésa
2. Apparently, it is to Vb’3::’f–iQtiC€.(E1 that gt1_1eV«l”p4r’eliIninari?l
objection has been answered ‘the’VArbitratoI’*-Adi’recting the
claimant to delete certain” the amended
petition. It is a1so_to._be proceedings
are initiated the interse between the
parties at proceedings cannot be treated
as where the order passed on
every interl’ec_utto_r3f’application could be questioned before this
Courtjluvnder Article 22%-‘ of the Constitution. If the orders
pAa’ss_e’d Arbitrator on interlocutory application or
is entertained by this Court, the Very
by _ purpose of the matter being referred to Arbitrator will be
:frustrated*;.. Even on merits, I am of the View that the
it .preli1ni’na1y objection has been correctly answered in as much
as«-[certain paragraphs which according to the petitioner could
” not have been added pursuant to an amendment have been
/
W P NO31415/2009
4
directed to be deleted. Hence, there is no merit in this petition.
Petition stands rejected.
JL
§ y A