High Court of Karnataka Allows Petition Under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for Appointment of Arbitrator in Joint Development Agreement Dispute. Memorandum of Agreement dated 14.06.2012 Contains Valid Arbitration Clause.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 246
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, three individuals, filed a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with the respondent, LGCL Properties Private Limited, arising out of a Memorandum of Agreement dated 14.06.2012. The petitioners had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with the respondent on 16.04.2012, which was registered on 14.06.2012. The Memorandum of Agreement was part of the JDA and contained an arbitration clause. The respondent opposed the petition, contending that the Memorandum of Agreement was not an arbitration agreement and that the disputes were not arbitrable. The court examined the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement and found that it clearly provided for arbitration of disputes. The court held that the arbitration agreement exists and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The petition was allowed.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Existence of Arbitration Agreement - The petitioners sought appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising out of a Memorandum of Agreement dated 14.06.2012, which was part of a Joint Development Agreement. The respondent opposed, arguing that the Memorandum of Agreement was not an arbitration agreement. The court examined the terms and found that the Memorandum of Agreement contained an arbitration clause referring disputes to arbitration. Held that the arbitration agreement exists and an arbitrator should be appointed (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising out of a Memorandum of Agreement dated 14.06.2012, which is part of a Joint Development Agreement.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. A sole arbitrator is appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 14.06.2012.

Law Points

  • Arbitration agreement
  • existence of
  • joint development agreement
  • reference to arbitration
  • appointment of arbitrator
  • Section 11(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (KAR) (01) 13

Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.159 of 2018

2019-01-02

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice

Smt. Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate for Shri Rohan Kothari, Advocate for petitioners; Shri B.S. Radhanandan, Advocate for respondent

Mr. M.N. Kumar, Mr. R. Venkata Krishna, Mr. C.S. Mohan

LGCL Properties Private Limited

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 arbitrator.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners seek appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of Memorandum of Agreement dated 14.06.2012.

Filing Reason

Disputes arose between the parties under the Joint Development Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement, and the petitioners invoked the arbitration clause.

Issues

Whether the Memorandum of Agreement dated 14.06.2012 contains an arbitration agreement? Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the Memorandum of Agreement contains an arbitration clause and disputes have arisen, warranting appointment of an arbitrator. Respondent contended that the Memorandum of Agreement is not an arbitration agreement and disputes are not arbitrable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Memorandum of Agreement dated 14.06.2012 contains a valid arbitration clause, and disputes arising out of it are arbitrable. Therefore, an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Judgment Excerpts

By way of this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners have made the request for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate upon and decide all their disputes with the respondent, arising out of, and relating to, the Memorandum of Agreement dated 14.06.2012.

Procedural History

The petition was filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reserved for orders, and pronounced on 02.01.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11, Section 11(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal by MSEDCL in Electricity Theft Case, Remands Matter for Fresh Trial. Acquittal Set Aside as Trial Court Failed to Consider Evidence and Provisions of Electricity Act, 2003.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging EPF Dues on Pigmy Deposit Collectors — Co-operative Bank Held Liable for Provident Fund Contributions. Pigmy Deposit Collectors are 'Employees' under Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds an...