ANITHA GURUKAR Vs. BARISTA COFFEE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act", for short) has been preferred by the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator alleging breach of MoU dated 16th September 2008 on behalf of respondent and the petitioner suffering loses because of breach of MOU. The petitioner had given a notice dated 31st October, 2008 to the respondent for appointment of an arbitrator in view of failure on the part of respondent for implementing the terms and conditions of MOU. The respondent, however, did not appoint arbitrator, hence this petition.

(2.) The stand taken by respondent is that there was no concluded contract between respondent and the petitioner and the application for appointment of arbitrator was not maintainable.

(3.) It is not disputed by respondent that MOU dated 16th August 2008 was signed between the parties. Vide this MOU, respondent had agreed to take on rent the premises owned by the petitioner bearing number 30, Nehru Circle, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore -560 020. The MOU provided for terms and conditions on which the premises was to be taken. The MOU also provided that a formal lease agreement shall be executed between the parties and the lease shall be for a period of 12 years. It was specifically provided that the lease so executed could not be terminated prematurely on the part of lessor. This MOU contained an arbitration clause to the following clause: