Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 944 (KAR)

K. A. Satish Kumar v. K. A. Chandrakanth

2013-08-20

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2013
Judgment : 1. There is no representation for the petitioner though the case was called twice in the morning. From the memorandum of petition, what is apparent is that the petitioner claims that under the partnership deed dated 28.4.1979 Annexure-A, he is one of the partners, while respondents are other partners. According to the petitioner one of the partners by name K.Ananthalakshmana Setty executed an 'on demand promissory note' for Rs.25 lakhs as a "profit account" payable to the petitioner promising to be released during the accounting year 2011-12. That K.Ananthalakshmana Setty is said to have died on 26.4.2008 whence the 1st respondent, it is said "became the managing partner and promising to pay the aforesaid profit amount". Petitioner is said to have instituted O.S.4799/94 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts which is pending. It is the further assertion of the petitioner that a notice dated 16.12.2011 was issued demanding payment under the promissory note for Rs.25 lakhs which though responded, the reply was untenable, hence the notice dated 1.12.2012 Annexure-B invoking clause 14 of the Partnership deed Annexure-A being the Arbitration agreement and indicating the nomination of one M.S.Harinath, Advocate as his arbitrator while calling upon the respondents to nominate any of their arbitrators or a sole arbitrator. That notice, it is said was responded to by a reply dated 7.12.2012 Annexure- C declining the request of the petitioner. Hence this petition invoking subsection (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of clause (14) of the Partnership deed, Annexure-A. 2. Without going into the merits or demerits of the case of the petitioner, suffice it to state that petitioner having instituted O.S.4799/94 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of the accounts, and regard being had to Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this petition invoking subsection (6) of Section 11 of the Act is not maintainable. The petition is rejected.