- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7923 CMP No. 399 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.399 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. SPRINGBOARD SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT E-3, RANI JHANSI ROAD, JHANDEWALAN EAST, CENTRAL DELHI, NEW DELHI - 110 055. AND ITS OFFICE AT GOPALA KRISHNA COMPLEX 45/3, RESIDENCY ROAD, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU-560025. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL HEAD-SOUTH DIVISION, MR.PIYUSH JAIN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER E., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. MUDITA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO.2, PARIJATHA APARTMENTS, NO.45/1, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7923 CMP No. 399 of 2024 RACECOURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. DAMODAR. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER CONSTITUTING AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BY APPOINTING MR. B. SHIVALINGEGOWDA, RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE, EMPANELED WITH THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL), AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATING THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE 15.2 OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 20.07.2015, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under section 11(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act') seeking appointment of sole - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7923 CMP No. 399 of 2024 arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of the arbitration clause provided under the Lease Deed dated 20.07.2015. 2. Sole respondent is served and has not chosen to appear in this proceedings. 3. The petitioner contends that it entered into a valid lease agreement with the respondent and was inducted as a tenant under the said agreement. In terms of the Lease Deed, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.14,69,868/- as a refundable security deposit, which was agreed to be returned upon the termination of the lease. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that this deposit carried an interest component at the rate of 18% per annum. Further, the petitioner avers that it had paid a sum of Rs.8,47,320/- to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) towards rent for the month of April 2024. Consequently, the petitioner claims entitlement to a refund of Rs.84,732/- as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said amount. 4. The petitioner alleges that despite the termination of the lease agreement, the respondent has failed to refund the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7923 CMP No. 399 of 2024 security deposit as well as the amount claimed towards TDS. In light of this dispute, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause stipulated in the lease agreement by issuing a legal notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"). Since the respondent failed to act upon the petitioner's request for arbitration, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the 1996 Act for the resolution of the dispute. 5. Upon a meticulous examination of the documents annexed to the petition, this Court finds that an arbitration clause does exist in the Lease Deed, thereby establishing the contractual intent of both parties to resolve disputes through arbitration. The petitioner has also satisfied the requirements mandated under Section 11(5) of the 1996 Act, justifying the intervention of this Court for the appointment of an Arbitrator. 6. The arbitration clause in the Lease Deed specifies that the arbitration proceedings shall be conducted exclusively in the English language and that the venue for arbitration shall be New Delhi. However, the clause also confers jurisdiction for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7923 CMP No. 399 of 2024 arbitration at Bengaluru, creating an apparent conflict in the designated place of arbitration. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3212, this Court refrains from examining the conflicting clauses regarding the place of arbitration. The Supreme Court has categorically held that when an agreement contains contradictory arbitration clauses specifying multiple venues, the jurisdiction of the court at the chosen venue takes precedence. Notably, in the present case, the lease premises is located in Bengaluru, and both the petitioner and respondent are residents of Bengaluru, thereby reinforcing the relevance of Bengaluru as the appropriate venue for arbitration. 7. In light of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that where multiple venues are designated within an arbitration agreement, the resolution of such conflict must adhere to the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens. This doctrine enables the determination of the most appropriate forum by considering factors such as the nature of the agreement, the subject matter of the dispute, and the convenience of the parties. In the present case, given that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7923 CMP No. 399 of 2024 the lease premises is situated in Bengaluru, the lease deed was executed in Bengaluru, and both parties to the agreement reside in Bengaluru, this Court deems it appropriate to facilitate arbitration proceedings in Bengaluru. Accordingly, an Arbitrator is to be appointed in Bengaluru, in accordance with the arbitration clause and the agreement between the parties. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed appointing Sri. B. Shivalingegowda, retired District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct proceedings at the Arbitration & Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru, according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre. (ii) All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7923 CMP No. 399 of 2024 (iii) The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and to Sri. B. Shivalingegowda, retired District Judge, as required under the Arbitration & Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE sac List No.: 3 Sl No.: 17