B.S.T. SWAMY Vs. G.C. YADAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is seeking for appointment of arbitrators as prayed for in the petition or to appoint any other fit person as sole arbitrator to adjudicate and decide the disputes and differences that has arisen between petitioner and respondent in connection with the agreement dated 21.04.2014 contending inter alia that petitioner is the owner of property situated at Koramangala and a lease agreement came to be entered into between petitioner and respondent whereunder petitioner had agreed to lease the said property to respondent for a period of 10 years and as agreed to under said agreement respondent was put in possession of the premises and during the continuation of the lease termination notice dated 05.12.2014 came to be issued by respondent to petitioner intimating thereunder that respondent would vacate the premises in question on or before 28.02.2015 and same being illegal and not in accordance with law, a notice came to be issued by petitioner on 20.12.2014 indicating thereunder that such termination is bad and as such a dispute has arisen between the parties under said agreement dated 21.04.2014 and same requires to be adjudicated by arbitrators or arbitrator. It is contended that parties have agreed to resolve their dispute as per Clause 15 of the agreement that parties would settle their dispute under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, it is contended that petitioner got issued a legal notice on 03.01.2015 calling upon respondent to concur with the appointment of arbitrators or in the alternate to suggest name of any advocate to act as arbitrator within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice, which has been denied by respondent by reply dated 07.01.2015, Annexure -F and as such, it has given rise to cause of action for petitioner to seek for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, Sri. N.P. Kallesh Gowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition seeks for appointment of sole arbitrator.

(2.) PER contra, Sri. K.S. Mahadevan, learned counsel appearing for respondent along with Sri. Jayaram, Advocate would submit that there is no dispute between the parties and after having entered into lease agreement with petitioner in terms thereof respondent has vacated the premises taken on lease by issuing three (3) months notice to petitioner and it was also pursuant to permission granted by the Company Court to vacate the premises and as such, there is no dispute which requires to be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal or the arbitrator of such Arbitral Tribunal and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of annexures appended to petition and in particular arbitration clause of subject agreement (dated 21.04.2014) would indicate that parties to the agreement have agreed as follows:

(3.) IT is not in dispute that respondent herein who is the Official Liquidator attached to Company Court had entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner on 21.04.2014 in respect of immovable property described under Schedule A to the said agreement with the leave of Company Court. Clause 13 of said agreement enables the lessee to terminate the lease by giving three (3) months notice. Said clause reads as under: