- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4556 CMP No. 391 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.391 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. D.R LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE SRI D.NARASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT NO.1/62, STATION ROAD YARRAMUKKAPALLI (P.O) KADAPA ANDHRA PRADESH-516004 2. MR.D.RAGHAVA REDDY S/O LATE SRI D NARASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.1/62, STATION ROAD YARRAMUKKAPALLI (PO) KADAPA ANDHRA PRADESH-516004 3. MR.D SREEDHAR REDDY S/O LATE SRI D NARASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.43 BNR COLONY ROAD NO.14, BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD TELANGANA-500034 4. SMT.D.MOHINI W/O SRI.D.RAGHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4556 CMP No. 391 of 2024 R/AT NO.1/62, STATION ROAD YARRAMUKKAPALLI P.O., KADAPA ANDHRA PRADESH-516004 5. SMT. D.SUPRAJA W/O LATE D.RAVINDRANATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.1-95(1), Y.S.GEORGE REDDY STREET R.S.ROAD, KAPADA ANDHRA PRADESH-516004 6. SMT.D.SIREESHA REDDY W/O SRI D.SREEDHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.43, BNR COLONY ROAD NO.14 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD TELANGANA-500034 7. MR.D.VARUN REDDY S/O LATE D.RAVINDRANATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.1-95(1), Y.S.GEORGE REDDY STREET R.S.ROAD, KAPADA ANDHRA PRADESH-516004 ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PETITIONER NO.3 - MR.D.SREEDHAR REDDY S/O LATE SRI D NARASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.43 BNR COLONY, ROAD NO.14 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500034 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.GIRIDHAR S V, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4556 CMP No. 391 of 2024 AND: LIGHT SQUARE DESIGNS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.84 ST. HOUSE, RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU-560025 AND ALSO BRANCH AT DNR TOWERS, NO.275 SITUATED IN AMAR JYOTHI H.B.C.S. LAYOUT DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560011. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MRS.PREMA LATHA W/O SHRI YASHAWANTH MEHTA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.Y.KIRAN, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ASHOK B HINCHINGERI AS THE ARBITRATOR FOR THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE CLAUSE 21 OF THE DEED OF LEASE EXECUTED ON 15.03.2017 AS AT ANNEXURE-A TO ENTER UPON REFERENCE AND TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF THE NOTICE OF THE DEMAND DATED 20.05.2024 AS AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4556 CMP No. 391 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short '1996 Act') seeking to appoint a sole Arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Clause 21 of the Lease Deed dated 15.03.2017 as per Annexure-A to resolve the dispute between the petitioners and respondent. 2. After issuance of notice to the respondent, the respondent has engaged a counsel and statement of objection is filed. 3. The petitioners and the respondent entered into a Lease Agreement in respect of the schedule property. The respondent has defaulted in payment of the lease rentals w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The total rent due for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.05.2024 is Rs.2,28,54,799/- and as against the same, the respondent has affected payment of a sum of Rs.1,48,19,261/- only and consequently, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4556 CMP No. 391 of 2024 respondent has defaulted in payment and are in arrears of rent of Rs.80,35,538/- as of the 31.05.2024. 4. The petitioners are before this Court on the strength of the Lease Deed dated 15.03.2017. The petitioners by invoking Clause-21 of the Lease Deed have issued a notice thereby terminating the tenancy dated 20.05.2024. The petitioners allege that tenancy of the respondent stands terminated on account of non-payment of arrears of rent or on the failure to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property. The petitioners while invoking Clause-21 have issued a notice thereby suggesting to nominate the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising out of the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed. Since there was no reply and compliance, the petitioners are before this Court seeking appointment of the sole Arbitrator. 5. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition by contending that the Lease Deed explicitly stipulates - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4556 CMP No. 391 of 2024 Hyderabad as the venue for arbitration. Relying on this contractual provision, the respondent argues that this Court lacks the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966. It is their contention that since the parties have contractually agreed upon Hyderabad as the designated venue for arbitration, any application seeking the appointment of an arbitrator must be filed before the competent court having jurisdiction over Hyderabad, and not before this Court. The respondent asserts that party autonomy is a fundamental principle of arbitration law, and once the parties have chosen a particular venue for arbitration, the courts at that place alone would have jurisdiction over any proceedings arising out of the arbitration agreement. Consequently, it is urged that the present petition be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 6. The petitioners, however, have strongly opposed the respondent's objection by relying on the judgment of a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4556 CMP No. 391 of 2024 Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE1. The petitioners contend that, as per the principles laid down in the said judgment, jurisdiction cannot be determined merely by the venue mentioned in the arbitration agreement, but must also take into account other relevant factors such as the location of the subject matter of the dispute and the residence of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have pointed out that the property in question, which is the subject of the Lease Deed, is situated in Bengaluru. Furthermore, the respondent is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, and the execution of the Lease Deed also took place in Bengaluru. Given these circumstances, it is argued that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as Bengaluru has a significant and substantial connection with the dispute. The petitioners thus submit that the respondents' jurisdictional objection is misconceived and ought to be 1 2024 SCC Online SC 3212 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4556 CMP No. 391 of 2024 overruled. Applying the principles enunciated in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. (cited supra) and considering the fact that the cause of action has primarily arisen in Bengaluru, the petitioners assert that this Court is the appropriate forum for adjudicating the present matter. Therefore, they urge that the prayer sought in the petition be granted. 7. Having given anxious consideration to the legal principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is evident that the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE (cited supra) is directly applicable to the present case. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Court reiterated that when an agreement containing an arbitration clause explicitly stipulates a designated place for dispute resolution, the jurisdiction of the Courts at the chosen venue gains precedence, unless compelling reasons indicate otherwise. The Court further emphasized that where the agreement between the parties provides for arbitration, judicial - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4556 CMP No. 391 of 2024 intervention should be minimal, ensuring that the arbitration mechanism agreed upon by the parties is given full effect. 8. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the property in question, which is governed by the Lease Deed, contains an arbitration clause for dispute resolution between the Landlord and the Tenant. Additionally, it is an undisputed position that the Respondent/Tenant resides in Bengaluru and the respondent is in possession of the leased premises, which also falls within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru. The guiding principles laid down in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. (cited supra) decisively affirm that where an arbitration agreement exists, and where two or more possible places are designated in the arbitration agreement either expressly or impliedly, equally appear to be the seat of arbitration, then in such cases, the conflict may be resolved through the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens and the seat be then determined based on which one of the possible places will be most appropriate - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4556 CMP No. 391 of 2024 forum keeping in mind the nature of agreement, the dispute at hand. Given the fact that lease premises is situated at Bengaluru, the lease deed was executed at Bengaluru and the respondent apart from being in possession of leased premises is also resident of Bengaluru. 9. Therefore, applying the principles enunciated in Arif Azim Co. Ltd., (cited supra) this Court finds no merit in the objections raised by the respondent. The petitioners have duly satisfied the requirements under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to uphold the arbitration clause and facilitate the appointment of an arbitrator in Bengaluru as per the agreement between the parties. Accordingly, the objections raised by the respondent stand overruled. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4556 CMP No. 391 of 2024 ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, appointing Sri.Justice N.Kumar, retired and Former Judge of this Court, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioners and respondent in terms of the Clause No.21 of the Lease Deed dated 15.03.2017 (Annexure-A) to the petition. (ii) All contentions are kept open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. (iii) The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and Sri.Justice N.Kumar, retired and Former Judge of this Court, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7