Y. BASAVARAJ Vs. Y. CHANGALAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the matter was called on 08.04.2015, there is no representation on behalf of 1st respondent.

(2.) LEARNED Senior Counsel Sri. Adithya Sondhi was heard and he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd., v. NEPC India Ltd., reported in : (1999)2 SCC 479, to the effect that there must be a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and the applicant should show the intent before commencement of arbitration. In the absence of same, Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') is not applicable and he also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Firm Ashok Traders and Another v. Gurumukh Das Saluja and others reported at : (2004) 3 SCC 155, wherein it is held that an application under Section 9 of the Act is filed before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, there has to be manifest intention on the part of the applicant to take recourse to the arbitral proceedings. Admittedly, in the present case, even after a lapse of seven years, there was no manifest intention on the part of respondent No. 1 to take recourse to arbitration proceedings. Even though an opportunity was given to the respondent -1 by posting the matter from 08.04.2015 to today i.e. on 16.04.2015 and called the matter twice, none appears for the respondent -1. Therefore, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter after hearing further the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) THE parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.