M. VENUGOPAL Vs. SRI MUNEGOWDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking appointment of the Arbitrator. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner and respondents herein had entered into a sale agreement dated 25.03.2009. According to the petitioner, since the respondents have failed to perform their part of the agreement, the petitioner is entitled to seek specific performance. In that regard, reference is made to Clause 16 of the agreement which provides for dispute resolution. As per the said Clause, the dispute or difference arising between the parties is to be referred to a Sole Arbitrator who will thereafter decide upon the dispute between the parties.

(2.) IN that regard, the petitioner is stated to have addressed a letter dated 23.04.2011 (Annexure -B) to the respondents herein nominating an Arbitrator and seeking response from the respondents to confirm the same or to suggest any other name who could be appointed as an Arbitrator. Though respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 had consented to the same, the other respondents did not respond to the notice. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court seeking appointment of the Arbitrator.

(3.) IN the light of the rival contentions, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Household and Healthcare Ltd. Vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 1376 to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that in a circumstance where the agreement itself is disputed also, the Arbitrator would have to enter upon the reference and decide that question as well. Hence, it is contended that the contention put forth by the respondents cannot be accepted in the instant petition but would have to be allowed to be decided by the Arbitrator.