High Court of Karnataka Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Partnership Dispute Under Section 11(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Dispute Arises from Partnership Deed Dated 10/03/2008 and Reconstitution Deed. Court Holds That Existence of Arbitration Clause and Failure of Respondent to Appoint Arbitrator Justifies Appointment by Court.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Sri. S. Shivakumar and Smt. H. Girija, partners of M/S SGH Rural Godown, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the partnership deed dated 10/03/2008 and the reconstitution deed. The respondents included the partnership firm and its other partners, Smt. Sunanda and Sri. G.H. Krishnamurthy. The petitioners alleged that disputes had arisen among the partners regarding the management and affairs of the firm, and despite invoking the arbitration clause, the respondents failed to appoint an arbitrator. The court heard the matter and reserved orders on 05.02.2025. The court examined the existence of an arbitration agreement in the partnership deed and found that the respondents had not appointed an arbitrator despite notice. The court held that the conditions for appointment under Section 11(5) were satisfied and appointed Sri. Justice A.V. Chandrashekar (Retd.), a former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes. The court directed the arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes in accordance with law, with the parties bearing their own costs.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Partnership Dispute - Petitioners sought appointment of sole arbitrator to resolve disputes under partnership deed dated 10/03/2008 and reconstitution deed - Respondents failed to appoint arbitrator despite notice - Court held that existence of arbitration clause and failure of respondents to appoint arbitrator justifies appointment by court - Appointed Sri. Justice A.V. Chandrashekar (Retd.) as sole arbitrator (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from the partnership deed dated 10/03/2008 and reconstitution deed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition and appointed Sri. Justice A.V. Chandrashekar (Retd.), former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The arbitrator was directed to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs.

Law Points

  • Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996 empowers the High Court to appoint an arbitrator when parties fail to agree on appointment procedure
  • Existence of arbitration clause in partnership deed is sufficient to invoke Section 11
  • Court's role under Section 11 is prima facie examination of existence of arbitration agreement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (02) 2

Civil Misc. Petition No. 303 of 2023

2025-02-12

Sachin Shankar Magadum

Sri. Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate for Sri. Krishna .T, Advocate for Petitioners; Sri. Tejasvi .K.V, Advocate for Respondents

Sri. S. Shivakumar and Smt. H. Girija

M/S SGH Rural Godown, Smt. Sunanda, and Sri. G.H. Krishnamurthy

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of sole arbitrator.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the partnership deed dated 10/03/2008 and reconstitution deed.

Filing Reason

Disputes arose among partners of M/S SGH Rural Godown; respondents failed to appoint arbitrator despite notice.

Issues

Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that disputes have arisen under the partnership deed and reconstitution deed, and despite invoking arbitration clause, respondents failed to appoint arbitrator. Respondents did not oppose the appointment of an arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when parties fail to agree on the appointment procedure, the High Court may appoint an arbitrator. The existence of an arbitration clause in the partnership deed and the failure of the respondents to appoint an arbitrator justifies the court's intervention to appoint a sole arbitrator.

Judgment Excerpts

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, praying to appoint a sole arbitrator nominated by the petitioners, to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, which have arisen under the deed of partnership dated 10/03/2008, vide Annexure-A and the reconstitution deed vide Annexure-B. The court appointed Sri. Justice A.V. Chandrashekar (Retd.), former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as the sole arbitrator.

Procedural History

The petition was filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was heard and reserved for orders on 05.02.2025, and the order was pronounced on 12.02.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Partnership Dispute Under Section 11(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Dispute Arises from Partnership Deed Dated 10/03/2008 and Reconstitution Deed. Court Holds That Existence of Arb...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Quashes Encroachment Proceedings Due to Survey Misidentification and Violation of Natural Justice. Land in Dispute Found to Be in Different Survey Number and Village, Not Government Poramboke Under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, ...