Wg.Cdr. C.R Mohan Raj V M (Retd) vs Mr.Motilal Oswal on 27 August, 2010

_1_
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OE AUGUST 2010
BEFORE   I'

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE AJIT J     

cMP.NO.12 OE~2O1o  "  '  
BETWEEN I  I I

we. CDR. C.R.MOHAN RAJV_,M_(RETD)__ I I _
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS  " _  f -- "
R/AT NO454, Sm CROSS,  "  '
7TH BLOCK, '   *
JAYANAGAR, * 'I  '--  
BANGALORE -- 560 07Q,_ "  5

(By SR1: ROIIITEI:.GOWI)A,..ADV'.§.'Vv I 

AND

MR. MOTILAL OSWAL'-~ " 
CHAIRMAN I8»; MANAGING DIRECTOR
MOTILAL OSWAL'-SECURITIES I:rD.,
HOESOHST HO.L3SE,_

SRDFLOOIR,  POINT,

I :V'I'.1IIJVils/[vBA._I"t ;4i*'OQ 021.

I  RESPONDENT
(EEK  ORANDRASHEKHAR c OHANASPUR, ADV.)

*=i=**$

THIS CIVIL MISCPETITION FILED U/S. 11(6) OF THE

°-ARBITRATION AND OONOILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO
DISPUTE TO THE ARBITRATOR OR THE PERSON

SUGGESTED BY THE PETITIOENR AS PER ANNEXURE--'D'
OR ANY OTHER PERSON QUALIFIED TO CONDUCT
ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS PREFERABLE BY A RETIRED

 PETITIONER



-2-

DISTRICT JDUGE AT EANGALOE OR A PRACTICINIG
ADVOCATE AT BANGALORE As MAY BE DECIDED BY. THIS
I-ION'BLE COURT TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE-S"'--THAT
HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PE'imo~ENa_,___' SAND
RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF aijszice-"'iANDi"» ,_

THIS CMP COMING ON  
THE COURT MADE THE FOIaLOWI1\fi'!:G':'.fi' '  «.   

This petition  1'66] of the
Arbitration and   petitioner is
an Ex~servi§c;e'::,rrian  and a Senior
citizen    'Wing Commander. He
has  certain shares and the
responclents  After his retirement,

petitioner4"4"'is:V residiingfi at Bangalore and during the

. V.  Coursé"i'iof'"'the serifice and thereafter the petitioner had

 Vinvested._i"n Sh-ares of Various Companies. At that point

oAf"t.imefa -representative of the respondent-Company had

  requested him to become their Client. Accordingly, the

"petitioner became the client of the respondent and

it " "certain terms were agreed upon between the petitioner

and the respondent, which is reduced in writing, which

/'

_/X



-3-

is styled as "Agreement between a participant and a

person seeking to open a beneficial owner's account".

2. A perusal of the said agreement 
there is an arbitral clause. The  b 
petitioner is that without 
respondents have sold .Vce__rtain».V_"shareg3}7-  
resulted in loss to the tune of
Rs.40,00,000/~ (Rupees  only). The
grievance of thevgpetitioner transaction has
been dong   notice has been
issued  calling upon them to have the
dispute an arbitrator. The

res.pon'dent ha-sinotgresponded to the said notice.

   it  heard the learned counsel appearing for

the peti_tioner as well as counsel appearing for

V respondent.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that notwithstanding the fact that one of the

terms of the agreement is that arbitrai proceedings are /Q

C///K



-4-

to be held at Mumbai. Nevertheless, having regard to
Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
parties are free to choose the place of arbitratio:n;..V' He
further submits that the petitioner is a 
and is besotted with various aiirrients  
disease of Cancer for  
St.Johns Medical College,'«--..__l3arig.alore'.  
submits that the  oi  is at
Mumbai and they  at Bangalore.

Hence. this Court als'o"'i1as  to deal with

the rriatten g in

5; "Learned  appearing for the respondent

 thati~..l:h_aying regard to the terms of the

»v:agree1ir1ent.,;"'-- arbitral proceedings are to be held at

the petition is not maintainable.

'C €5.11 have perused the terms of the agreement.

7. Apparently, respondents have also a branch

office at Bangalore. indeed, the petitioner is also

residing in Bangalore. It is no doubt true that the /3;

..//1"./'



-5-

agreement would contain an arbitral c1ause,'___which
would speak about the place of arbitration;f..l_V"But
however, a perusal of Section 20 of 
indicate that the parties are freeto.agreel'§'fi:l{ti:eV'pllacQ'of ' ; ll
arbitration. Snb--Section (2) wo'ug1ci'..'_A'aLi'so
the parties do not agree  the placedni"VV':arbitration;'L
arbitral proceedings;-'shall be' to the
convenience of the    of the said
provision clearly  the
place of   the agreement, it is
always'opei§vi,:for:7'tfie:l:partiesliuto'agree upon the place of

arbitration. V

 'V8'; In thevcase on hand, it is to be noticed that the

» has its branch office at Bangalore and

. 'having to the fact that the petitioner is a senior

citizen'' and is also suffering from various ailments, I am

'A  l"the view that petition is maintainable in this Court.

Since a dispute has arisen between the petitioner and

respondent in respect of terms of the agreement as well

as sale of shares, I am of the view that the matter is ff;

_,:/72"'



-6-

required to be resolved by appointing an arbitrator.

Hence, the following order is passed:

(1) Petition is allowed. S1'i.N._Sl!AL_:Prasad., V
Advocate (Address: 4%" Flooar,  
Bhavan, Hudson    
Corporation,    

27) is appointed sole llarhitrator to

resolve the  the parties.

(2) The sole arbitratoit.  reference
 catise i'.1ot--i:ic'e" to"the-V'pa.rt:ies.

(3)  this order to

 sole ~.ar«h_i'trator along with the

'adldres'sjes_'l'of parties as well as the

 ieouvnsel__ apvpearing for them.

 .....  

ludgé