IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY C.M.P. NO.178/2013

Transcription

1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY BETWEEN: C.M.P. NO.178/2013 M/S. STERLING & WILSON LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT BEARING No.U31200MH1974PLC HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT No.4-A/14, 4 TH MAIN, CHIKKA ADUGODI NEW EXTN.THAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD BANGALORE REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIVERSAL MAJESTIC, 9 TH FLOOR P.L.LOKHANDE MARG, CHEMBUR (WEST) MUMBAI , REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SRI. P V HEGDE. (BY SRI.VEDAVYASA RAO R S, ADVOCATE FOR PAVAMANA A/S, ADVOCATES) AND: M/S. ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.1, GOLF AVENUE, ADJOINING KGA GOLF COURSE, AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR... PETITIONER... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. CRESTLAW PARTNERS, ADVOCATES)

2 2 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11[5&6] OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF WORK ORDER DATED TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT, VIDE ANN-A; ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER There can be no more dispute that clause of the tender document for electrical works Annexure-D issued by the respondent is arbitration agreement in respect of disputes arising in terms of the tender document. In the light of the said terms, petitioner is said to have made an offer culminating in a work order dated Annexure-C1, amongst other work orders. On the allegation that the respondent failed to honour its commitment in terms of the tender as well as the work order, petitioner is said to have raised several disputes leading to the notice dated Annexure-N, through learned Counsel, nominating an Arbitrator, which was responded to by the reply dated , Annexure-P, asserting that in the absence of

3 3 either an arbitrable dispute or an arbitration agreement, respondent does not concur with the appointment of the Arbitrator. Hence this petition invoking section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of Arbitrator. 2. Although learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in the proforma of the articles of agreement at clause 6.0 of the special conditions contract an enclosure to the tender document Annexure-D, mentions that all disputes arising out of or in any way connected with the agreement, shall be deemed to have arisen in Bangalore and only courts in Bangalore will have jurisdiction to determine the same, nevertheless, is candid in his admission that clause is the substantive covenant relating to arbitration over disputes between the parties. The very fact that the tender that was floated by the respondent specified disputes to be resolved by way of arbitration

4 4 noticed supra, it is reasonable to hold that the parties had consensus-ad-idem over the arbitration agreement. 3. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that Sri. R.S. Patil, retired District Judge, be appointed as Arbitrator. 4. Recording the submission, nothing further survives for consideration in this petition except to request Sri. R.S. Patil, retired District Judge to enter upon reference and adjudicate upon the points of dispute between the parties in terms of the Arbitration Agreement and to conduct the proceedings before the Arbitration Centre Karnataka [Domestic and International] at Bangalore, in accordance with the Arbitration Centre Karnataka [Domestic and International], Rules, Petition is ordered accordingly.

5 5 6. It is needless to state that if the parties were to raise disputes arising out of and in terms of the tender document and the contract, there is no reason to believe why the Arbitrator would not consider the same. AN/- Sd/- JUDGE