- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6114 CMP No. 409 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 409 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. M/S K. MOHAN AND COMPANY (EXPORTS) PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B-1, NO.62/5, 2ND CROSS BEGUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 068. REROPESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MS. GITANJALI R. MAHTANEY EMAIL. AMAHTANEY@GMAIL.COM …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.B. APPAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. HANEEF MOHAMMED SOLANKI (ALSO KNOWN AS HANIFF MOHAMMED SOLANKI) AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SON OF MR. NOOR MOHAMED SOLANKI PROPRIETOR: M/S ICEBERG APPAREL HAVING HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT SURVEY NOS. 62/6 AND 62/7 BEGUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI BENGLAURU-560 068. AND R/AT FLAT NOS. 25 AND 26 ALPINE PARK APARTMENT BEGUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 068. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6114 CMP No. 409 of 2023 EMAIL: SALES.SUPREMACYSOLUTIONS@GMAIL.COM EMAIL: INFOICEBERGAPPAREL@GMAIL.COM …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEEPAK RAJ .R.P, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) AND (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 AND PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT SUCH PERSON AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT UNDER CLAUSE 24 OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF WASHING UNIT DATED 28TH OCTOBER 2020 AT ANNEXURE-B, AWARD TO THE PETITIONER THE COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This civil miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 11(5) & 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute and difference between the parties in terms of agreement for sale dated 28.10.2020 evidenced at Annexure-B. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6114 CMP No. 409 of 2023 2. The respondent, on receipt of notice, has tendered appearance by engaging a counsel. Respondent has filed statement of objections while contesting this petition. 3. The petitioner states that, for commercial reasons, it was compelled to sell its washing unit as a separate running business and, in furtherance of this decision, approached the respondent with a proposal for sale. After negotiations, the petitioner and respondent entered into a formal agreement for sale of the washing unit, which was executed on 28.10.2020. As per the terms of the said agreement, the respondent was obligated to pay the agreed sale consideration along with certain additional amounts as stipulated therein. However, despite the existence of a legally binding agreement, the respondent has allegedly failed to honor its financial commitments. Consequently, the petitioner issued a demand notice dated 10.08.2023, marked as Annexure-F, calling upon the respondent to make the due - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6114 CMP No. 409 of 2023 payments. In light of the respondent’s continued failure to comply with the demands raised, the petitioner proceeded to issue a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. This notice, evidenced at Annexure-H, also included a proposal from the petitioner suggesting the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. 4. The respondent, in its statement of objections, has vehemently contested the very existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement. It is the respondent’s contention that no valid arbitration clause governs the present dispute, and hence, the petitioner’s invocation of arbitration is unwarranted. Furthermore, the respondent has argued that even if an arbitration clause is presumed to exist, the preconditions necessary for invoking arbitration have not been met. The respondent, therefore, asserts that the dispute is not arbitrable in the first place. In view of these objections, the respondent has taken the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6114 CMP No. 409 of 2023 position that this Court, acting in its capacity as a Referral Court, cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an Arbitrator. Accordingly, the respondent has urged that the petitioner’s request for arbitration be denied at the threshold. 5. On a careful review and examination of the annexures and supporting documents annexed to the civil miscellaneous petition, this Court is of the view that petitioner has fulfilled the mandate provided under Section 11(4) of the Act. 6. In the light of the aforesaid clause of arbitration and the contentions advanced by the petitioner and respondent, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed appointing Sri. I.S.Antin, Retired District Judge as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct proceeding at the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6114 CMP No. 409 of 2023 Arbitration and 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; (iii) Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and to Sri. I.S.Antin, Retired District Judge as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012; (iv) Registry is directed to forthwith return the original agreement of sale furnished along with this petition after obtaining Photostat copy of the same. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42