- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48332 CMP No. 110 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.110 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. PARAMOUNT GARMENT PROCESSING UNIT A REGISTERED FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. D.MAHESH KUMAR S/O SRI. D.GANESH SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.502, 5TH FLOOR, INDIRA IRIS, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, SARAIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560077. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR.M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER SOUTH -WESTERN RAILWAY COMMERCIAL BRANCH BENGALURU - 560023 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48332 CMP No. 110 of 2023 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH -WESTERN RAILWAY COMMERCIAL BRANCH BENGALURU - 560023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THE CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) R/W 11 (10) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (AMENDED 3 OF 2016 ACT), PRAYING TO APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT RELATING TO A) THE LOA NO. B/M. 271/CONT/BED ROLL/SPL TRAINS/QTN/2014 DATED 29/01/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48332 CMP No. 110 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief contending that the work order which has been issued by the respondents contains arbitration clause and the dispute has to be referred to the arbitration. Hence, he is before this Court. "WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint an Independent Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the Petitioner and Respondent Relating to a) The LOA No.B/M.271/Cont/Bed Roll/Spl Trains/Qtn/2014 dated 29-01-2014 vide Annexure- A1. b) Vide LOA NO. B/M. 271/Cont/Bed Roll/16569/70/YPR-KCG/14 dated 04-03-2014 vide Annexure-A2. c) Vide LOA NO. B/M. 271/Cont/BedRoll/22683/84 (YPR-LK)/14 dated 06-03-2014 vide Annexure-A3. d) Vide LOA NO. B/M. 271/Cont/Bed Roll/Spl Trains/Qtn/2014-III dated 08-05-2014 vide Annexure-A4. e) Vide LOA NO. B/M. 271/Cont/Bed Roll/Spl Trains/Qtn/2014-IV dated 04-06-2014 vide Annexure- A5. f) Vide LOA NO. B/M. 271/Cont/Bed Roll/Spl Trains/Qtn/2014-IV dated 30-06-2014 vide Annexure- A6. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48332 CMP No. 110 of 2023 g) Vide LOA NO. B/M. 271/Cont/BedRoll/12295/96 ((SBC-PNBE-II) 2014 dated 08-07-2014 vide Annexure-A7. And to pass such other order/s as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even though there is no dispute as regards arbitration clause, the claim which has been raised by the petitioner is expressly barred by limitation. As such, the matter cannot be referred to arbitration. 3. A perusal of the papers indicates that a letter of acceptance was issued on 30.06.2014 and the work was commenced on 30.06.2014 and was completed in the year 2014 itself and payments regarding those works were also paid. 4. It is only on 08.11.2019 that the petitioner raised dispute as regards the short payment and levy of penalty which came to be rejected by the respondents on 16.12.2019 and thereafter once again on 16.12.2020. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48332 CMP No. 110 of 2023 5. The above sequence of events would indicate that if the claim of the petitioner was as regards to work done in the year 2014 and if the payments have not been made in July 2014, any dispute ought to have been raised within three years thereafter. The first claim raised by the petitioner was in the year 2019, which has been rejected in the year 2019 itself. Hence, at this stage, to consider the claim of the petitioner to refer the matter to the arbitration by keeping limitation open, cannot be sustained under law. 6. The claim of the petitioner being ex-facie barred by limitation, there is no live issue that is required to be adjudicated by an arbitrator. 7. In that view of the matter, petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17