Full Judgment
1. This petition is filed under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Actfor the sake of brevity).
2. The petitioner is a company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 had entered into an agreement of lease with the respondents in respect of a commercial premises for the purpose of having their office in the premises in question located at Electronic City, Bengaluru-560 100.
3. Lease deed is dated 26-2-2013 executed at Bengaluru, between the parties (Annexure-A to the petition). Under the terms and conditions of the lease, respondents had to make available certain facilities in the leased premises. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the respondent-lessors did not comply with the terms and conditions of the lease deed. The petitioner, by legal notice dated 7-11-2014, demanded compliance of the terms and conditions of the lease deed (annexure-C to the petition), within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which, the petitioner would invoke Clause 33 of the lease deed dated 26-2-2013. Despite service of the said legal notice, respondents did not respond to the same, nor did they comply with the terms and conditions under the lease deed. In the circumstances, petitioner has filed this petition under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 33 of the lease deed.
4. In response to the service of notice by this Court, respondents 1 to 4 have not appeared either in person or through their representative. As far as respondent 5 is concerned, she resides at United States of America and service has been effected on her through courier. A memo was filed evidencing service of notice of the petition on her and by order dated 28-4-2015, this Court held that service of notice on respondent 5 is sufficient. Till date, there has been no appearance of the respondents.
5. In the circumstances, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the Court may appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 33 of the lease deed and the petitioner is willing to have a retired District Judge as an Arbitrator and enter upon the reference and arbitrate the dispute and that the petitioner is also agreeable to have the arbitration proceedings being conducted at the Arbitration Centre, Kanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru, in terms of the Arbitration Centre-Karnataka (Domestic and International) Rules, 2012. Clause 33 of the agreement reads as under:
33. Dispute Resolution.- Any dispute or difference arising between the lessors and the lessee out of this deed shall be finally settled by a sole Arbitrator appointed by the High Court of Karnataka under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The venue of the arbitration shall be Bangalore and the language shall be English. Subject to the above, Courts in Bangalore shall have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any dispute or difference between the parties arising out of this deed. The sole Arbitrator shall endeavour to dispose off the dispute as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 2 months from the date of first hearing ?.
6. As there has been no response to the notice invoking arbitration clause issued by the petitioner and neither has there been any representation on behalf of the respondents before this Court, in view of sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act, this Court would appoint Sri Vishwanath V. Angadi, retired District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator.
7. In the result, petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms.