High Court of Karnataka Appoints Arbitrator in Joint Development Agreement Dispute Under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration Clause Exists and Dispute Falls Within Its Scope.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 48
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Mr. Raghunandan Rao.B, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Joint Development Agreement dated 11.07.2018 entered into with the respondent, Mr. Mithun Maroli. The agreement contained an arbitration clause (Clause 18) which provided for resolution of disputes through arbitration. The petitioner alleged that disputes had arisen between the parties regarding the agreement. The respondent was served with notice but failed to appear before the court. The court examined the petition and the arbitration clause, and found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The court held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause and that the petitioner was entitled to appointment of an arbitrator. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The court directed that the arbitrator shall be appointed by the parties within a specified time, failing which the court would appoint one. The judgment was delivered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj on 2nd September 2022.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Existence of Arbitration Clause - The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act to resolve disputes arising from a joint development agreement dated 11.07.2018, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 18). The respondent did not appear despite service. The court found that the arbitration clause existed and the dispute fell within its scope. Held that the petition is allowed and an arbitrator is appointed (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the existence of an arbitration clause in the joint development agreement dated 11.07.2018.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. An arbitrator is appointed to resolve the disputes between the parties as per the arbitration clause in the Joint Development Agreement dated 11.07.2018.

Law Points

  • Arbitration agreement
  • existence of arbitration clause
  • appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6)
  • joint development agreement
  • dispute resolution
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (KAR) (09) 64

CMP No. 588 of 2022

2022-09-02

Suraj Govindaraj

K. Shashikanth Prasad

Mr. Raghunandan Rao.B

Mr. Mithun Maroli

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Joint Development Agreement dated 11.07.2018.

Filing Reason

Disputes arose between the parties under the Joint Development Agreement containing an arbitration clause.

Issues

Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 given the existence of an arbitration clause.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner submitted that there is a valid arbitration agreement and disputes have arisen, warranting appointment of an arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a valid arbitration agreement exists and disputes have arisen, the court may appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: ... The petitioner and the respondent had entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.07.2018 ... governed by an arbitration clause in terms of Clause 18 thereof ...

Procedural History

The petitioner filed CMP No. 588 of 2022 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent was served but did not appear. The court heard the petitioner and passed the order on 02.09.2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(6)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Appoints Arbitrator in Joint Development Agreement Dispute Under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration Clause Exists and Dispute Falls Within Its Scope.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Motor Accident Claim Cases Due to Erroneous Application of Contributory Negligence. Claim petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 dismissed by Tribunal and High Court on ground of contributory negligenc...