Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 666 (KAR)

Holiac Reality Ltd. v. K. Laxman.

2010-05-28

AJIT J.GUNJAL

body2010
ORDER 1. The petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the properties on certain terms and conditions contained in the agreement dated 9.7.2008. 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent has failed to perform his part of the obligation and having committed breach, notices were issued calling upon the respondent to come forward for completion of transaction which respondent failed to comply and instead took frivolous stand. 3. It is noticed that there is exchange of correspondence through counsel between the petitioner as well as the respondent Since a dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the terms of the agreement the petitioner issued a notice calling upon the respondent to agree to appoint an arbitrator to get the dispute reached before the arbitrator. Since that was not complied the present petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an arbitral clause, hence the dispute inter se between the petitioner and the respondent can be resolved before the arbitrator. 5. Sri. M.J. Alva, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submit that the agreement holder and the petitioner all together are different entities inasmuch as the petitioner is Holiac Realty Ltd., and the agreement holder is M/s. New Empire Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 6. I have perused the papers. 7. Insofar as the objection of Mr. M.J. Alva is concerned, it appears, a resolution was passed on 17.3.2008 to change the name of the company and the same is certified by the Deputy Registrar of Companies in September 2009. 8. Hence, I am of the view that the contention of Sri. M.J. Alva, learned counsel appearing for the respondent is to be rejected since the agreement itself discloses that it binds the successors in interest and assignees. 9. A perusal of the agreement to sell discloses it has an arbitral clause. The arbitral clause envisages that if dispute has arisen between the parties, the same is to be referred to an arbitrator for resolution. 10. Having regard to the fact that the dispute has arisen, I am of the view that the said dispute is required to be received by an arbitrator. Hence the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Justice R. Gururajan, Former Judge of this Court (Address: ' Å“Sree Harikrupa' No.504, 5th Floor, Sri. 10. Having regard to the fact that the dispute has arisen, I am of the view that the said dispute is required to be received by an arbitrator. Hence the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Justice R. Gururajan, Former Judge of this Court (Address: ' Å“Sree Harikrupa' No.504, 5th Floor, Sri. Chitrapur Housing Co-operatiwe Society Ltd., 15th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore - 560 003) is appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. The sole arbitrator shall enter reference and cause notice to the parties. Registry to communicate this order to the sole arbitrator. 11. Petition allowed.