- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14341 CMP No. 355 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION No.355 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MAHAVEER ELECTRO-MECH PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1592 1ST ‘A’ CROSS, 3RD MAIN 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, CHANDRA LAYOUT BENGALURU -560 040 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI K H SHARATH KUMAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAGENDRA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S B MANJUNATH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR OCC : PROPRIETOR R/AT NEAR MANJUNATH ITI COLLEGE 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS JAYANAGAR HASSAN – 573 201 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT –SERVED) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT A SUITABLE SOLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF THE CLAUSE NO.15 (ANNEXURE -2) OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT DATED 16.06.2020, AS PER ANNEXURE-D, TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14341 CMP No. 355 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of clause 15 of the general terms and conditions of the Contract Agreement dated 16.06.2020 vide Annexure-D. 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of the present petition are as follows: The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. A contract agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 16.06.2020. The respondent has taken work from the petitioner to execute work under various work orders. The material reconciliation and closure of the contract were not executed by the respondent despite several correspondences and reminders made to the respondent by the petitioner. Due to said reason, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14341 CMP No. 355 of 2024 petitioner was forced to terminate the contract. The contract was terminated in the startup state, and the petitioner was able to make progress in work on a self-execution basis, as the petitioner was committed to completing the project with M/s KIADB. 3. Respondent failed to complete the material reconciliation and closure of the contract. As such, the petitioner was constrained to issue legal notice to the respondent on 05.09.2023 and another legal notice on 27.04.2024 calling upon the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.7,23,94,139/- and also to refer the dispute to the sole arbitrator by invoking the arbitration clause 15 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Contract Agreement dated 16.06.2020. 4. The respondent replied to the said legal notice through an e-mail dated 01.05.2024 by disputing the contents of the said legal notice. Petitioner issued another legal notice on 03.05.2024, invoking the arbitration clause and proposed the name of one of the practicing advocates as sole arbitrator. The respondent did not reply to the said arbitration notice. Hence, a cause of action arises for the petitioner to file this petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14341 CMP No. 355 of 2024 5. Notice was issued to the respondent in the present petition. Despite service of notice, the respondent remained unrepresented. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 7. The point that arises for consideration in the present petition is: “Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitrator in terms of clause 15 of the general terms and conditions of the Contract Agreement dated 16.06.2020 vide Annexure-D?” 8. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent have entered into Contract Agreement. The respondent was not able to complete the work within the time limit. The petitioner terminated the Contract Agreement by issuing the legal notice. The respondent replied to the legal notice by disputing the contents of the same. The petitioner issued another legal notice, calling upon the respondent to pay Rs.7,23,94,139/-. 9. Despite the service of legal notice, the respondent did not pay the amount claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14341 CMP No. 355 of 2024 invoked the arbitration clause 15 of the General Terms and conditions of the Contract Agreement, which reads as follows: “15. ARBITRATION: Any dispute or difference whatsoever between the parties relating to the construction, meaning, scope, operation or effect of this contract or the validity or the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration by a arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in Bangalore. The Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English Language. The decision of the arbitrator (s) shall be final, binding and non - appealable. Judgment upon any award rendered may be entered into any court having jurisdiction, or application made to such court for judicial acceptance of the award or an order of enforcement, as the case may be. b) It is agreed however that the arbitrator shall not be an employee of either party or in any way financially interested in this agreement, dispute or claim. c) The cost of arbitration shall be borne by the SUB CONTRACTOR whose contention was not upheld by the arbitration award. d) The arbitration shall take place in the city of Bangalore and only the High Courts in Bangalore shall have the jurisdiction to try and entertain any dispute here under.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14341 CMP No. 355 of 2024 10. The bare reading of clause 15 of the General Terms and conditions of the Contract Agreement envisages that any dispute or difference whatsoever between the parties relating to the construction or effect of the contract or the validity or breach thereof, shall be settled by the arbitration by an Arbitrator, and the arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in Bengaluru. 11. The petitioner, invoking clause 15, issued notice on 27.04.2024 vide Annexure-E and proposed the name of a practicing Advocate as an Arbitrator. The respondent did not reply to the arbitration notice. Petitioner issued one more notice on 03.05.2024 invoking the arbitration clause. Despite the service of notice, the respondent did not reply to the legal notice. 12. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause in the Contract Agreement, and the dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the respondent and said dispute has to be resolved by arbitration through an arbitrator. 13. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator. Accordingly, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14341 CMP No. 355 of 2024 the point raised for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (ii) Sri V.N.Ravindra, District Judge (Retd.) is appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules. (iii) The Office is directed to communicate this Order to the Arbitrator and, the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12