TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Arbitrator appointed to decide assignment dispute under Share Purchase Agreement dated 22.12.2004; arbitration to proceed under Arbitration Rules, 2012</h1> <h3>SRI. R. KRISHNA MURTHY Versus SRI. M. AVINASH</h3> HC allowed the petition and appointed an arbitrator to decide disputes arising under the share purchase agreement dated 22.12.2004, including the ... Appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute which has arisen out of the share purchase agreement - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - assignment of right under the share purchase agreement - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the petitioner and the respondent have entered into a share purchase agreement at Annexure-A dated 22.12.2004. It is also not in dispute that the said agreement contains an arbitration clause for the resolution of the dispute. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has already assigned his right under the share purchase agreement at Annexure-A in favour of O. Arumugasamy. This question requires to be adjudicated by the arbitrator. In the circumstances, it is just and proper to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute. Hon’ble Sri. Justice B. Padmaraj, a Former Judge of this Court, is requested to enter upon the reference and arbitrate over the dispute and conduct arbitration proceedings at Arbitration Center in terms of the Arbitration Center – Karnataka (Domestic and International) Rules, 2012. Petition allowed. Petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator under a share purchase agreement dated 22.12.2004, which 'contains an arbitration clause for the resolution of the dispute.' Petitioner alleges respondent failed to perform obligations under the agreement after receipt of consideration; respondent contends petitioner had assigned his rights under the agreement to a third party, thus negating entitlement to appoint an arbitrator. Court found existence of the agreement and its arbitration clause undisputed and held that the question whether rights were assigned 'requires to be adjudicated by the arbitrator.' Petition allowed; an arbitrator is appointed to resolve the dispute and to conduct proceedings at the Arbitration Center in terms of the Arbitration Center - Karnataka (Domestic and International) Rules, 2012. No costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
