- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 135 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M. K SRINIVASAN S/O M.K SEETHARAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.89, EAST PARK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560055 ALSO THE SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S MKS SYSTEMS 2. M.K SRINIVASAN SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.33, 17TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560055 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.K SRINIVASAN …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. VIVEK REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHAIK ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TAURUS POWERTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 26, 12TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 2. M/S TAURUS POWERTRONICS SYSTEMS A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP WITH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT 26, 12TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 3. MR. M N RAVINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O MR. M.N NARASIMHAN, RESIDING AT L-404, BRIGADE GATEWAYS, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560055 4. MRS. GAYATHRI RAVINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O MR. M.N RAVINARAYAN, RESIDING AT L-404, BRIGADE GATEWAYS, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560055 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEEPAK BHASKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO EXERCISE THE POWER UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR OR ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENT AS PER CLAUSE 10.2 OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 28.12.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 10.2 of the Settlement Agreement dated 28.12.2021 vide Annexure “B”. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 3. The parents of petitioner No.1 established a company, named “Adhunik Electronics” in 1989 and petitioner No.1 established a sole proprietorship firm, namely “MKS Systems” in 1990. The petitioners and the respondents entered into a Marketing Agreement on 24.05.1999. Petitioner No.2-company was incorporated in 2015. Respondent No.3 purported to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 file certain applications for trademark registration of the mark “TAURUS” in October 2020, June 2021 and October 2021. The disputes arose between the parties in relation to the Marketing Agreement dated 24.05.1999. The petitioner issued a notice to the respondents regarding the disputes that had arisen and claims against the respondents vide notice dated 09.11.2021. Legal notices were issued on 15.11.2021 and 08.12.2021 to the respondents inter alia for the payment of dues, to cease and desist from representing itself as an agent of the petitioners’, and to desist from using of the petitioners' intellectual property. 4. On 28.12.2021, the petitioners and the respondents entered into a Settlement Agreement to put an end to all disputes, and all the trademark applications filed by the respondents for the mark of TAURUS, which are already registered in their name, were assigned to the petitioners through an Assignment - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 Deed dated 28.12.2021. It is contended that the respondents are selling products illegally, using the petitioners’ registered trade mark. The petitioners issued a legal notice on 09.04.2024 to the respondents calling upon the respondents to immediately cease and desist the unlawful and unauthorised use of the trademark ‘TAURUS’ and its variants, for identical products. 5. The petitioners issued a reminder via email to the respondents on 22.04.2024. The respondents replied to the said legal notice on 25.04.2024 and in their response, the respondents have unsubstantially and blatantly denied all the allegations made by the petitioners in the legal notice. 6. The petitioners, as interim measures, filed an interlocutory application under Section 9 of the Act in Commercial Arbitration Application No.168 of 2024 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge Commercial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 Court, Bengaluru, seeking an interim order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from infringing the right on trademark TAURUS, from passing off the petitioners’ products and restraining the respondents from using their domain name. 7. The Commercial Court, after hearing the parties reserved the matter for orders. 8. The respondents filed a suit in Commercial Original Suit No.1771 of 2024, praying to cancel the unregistered deed of assignment dated 28.12.2021 entered into between the petitioners and the respondents, and also sought a perpetual injunction to stop the petitioners from infringing the trademark right or passing of the trademark TAURUS. 9. The respondents, by suppressing the pending Commercial Arbitration Application No.168 of 2024, obtained an ad interim ex parte temporary injunction - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 as prayed for insofar as I.A. Nos.3 to 5 vide order dated 26.12.2024. 10. The petitioners invoked an arbitration clause as per Clause 10.2 of the Settlement Agreement dated 28.12.2021 by issuing an arbitration notice dated 07.02.2025. The respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. Hence, this petition. 11. The respondents filed a statement of objections raising various contentions on merits and prayed to dismiss the petition. 12. Heard the arguments of Sri.S.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Deepak Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the respondents have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 28.12.2021 and the dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondents regarding the implementation of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 Agreement dated 28.12.2021. The dispute has to be resolved through an arbitration in terms of clause 10.2 of the said agreement. He submits that the petitioners filed a Commercial Arbitration Application in Com.A.A. No.168 of 2024 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and interlocutory applications were also filed in the arbitration application i.e., I.A. Nos.2 to 4, which were allowed and respondents were restrained from infringing, passing off its products, etc. 14. He submits that the petitioners approached the respondents for impartial and fair negotiation, but the same ended without any results. The petitioners invoked an arbitration clause by issuing a notice on 07.02.2025 and the respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. He submits that the arbitral dispute arose between the parties to the petition and the same must be resolved through arbitration. Hence, prays to allow the petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have filed a statement of objections. However, the respondents have no objection to nominate any former High Court Judge of Karnataka as an Arbitrator to resolve the arbitral disputes which arose between the parties to the petition and he submits that all the contentions may be kept open before the Arbitral Tribunal, including the validity of the Settlement Agreement dated 28.12.2021 and prays to dispose of the petition accordingly. 16. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 17. The point that arises for consideration in this petition is : “Whether the petitioners have made out a ground to refer the arbitral disputes between the parties to the petition, to the sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 10.2 of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 Settlement Agreement dated 28.12.2021 as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Rules?” 18. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and the respondents have entered into Marketing Agreement on 24.05.1999 and subsequently, petitioner No.2- Company was incorporated in 2015. Respondent No.3 purported to file certain applications for trademark registration of the Mark TAURUS in October 2020, June 2021 and October 2021. The petitioners issued a notice regarding the dispute that arose between the parties to the petition and also issued a legal notices dated 15.11.2021 and 08.12.2021. Thereafter, the petitioners and the respondents have entered into a Settlement Agreement on 28.12.2021 and all the trademark applications filed by the respondents for the Mark TAURUS which were already registered in their name were assigned to the petitioners through an - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 Assignment Deed. The petitioners issued a legal notice calling upon the respondents to immediately cease and desist the unlawful and unauthorised use of the trademark TAURUS and its variants for identical products on 09.04.2024 and also issued reminder email on 22.04.2024. The respondents replied to the said notice on 25.04.2024 and denied all the allegations made by the petitioners in the legal notice dated 25.04.2024. 19. After the receipt of the reply notice, the petitioners filed an Arbitration Application under Section 9 of the Act in Commercial Arbitration Application No.168 of 2024 and filed interlocutory applications and obtained an interim order of temporary injunction against the respondents. 20. The dispute arose between the parties to the petition. There is an arbitration clause in the Settlement - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 Agreement dated 28.12.2021, which reads as follows: “10.2 Dispute Resolution 10.2.1 All disputes or differences between the Parties in respect of or connected with the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement or arising out of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Dispute") shall at the first instance be resolved through good faith negotiations between the Parties senior officials. 10.2.2 If the Parties are unable to resolve the Dispute in question within 14 (fourteen) Business Days of the commencement of negotiations in terms of Clause 10.2.1 above, then the Dispute shall, unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing, be referred for determination in accordance with the remaining provisions of this Clause 10 Any Party may refer the Dispute to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the time being in force. The Dispute shall be - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 submitted for arbitration to a sole arbitrator, to be appointed jointly by both Parties. The venue and place of arbitration shall be Bangalore, and the arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English language The arbitral award shall be in writing, state the reasons for the award, and be final and binding on the Parties. The award may include an award of costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements. Judgment upon the award may be entered by any court having jurisdiction thereof or having jurisdiction over the relevant Party or as assets. 10.2.3 This Clause 10.2 constitutes an irrevocable consent by the Parties to any proceedings in terms thereof and no Party shall be entitled to withdraw their consent from or to clam at any such proceedings that it is not bound by this Clause 10.2. 10.2.4 This Clause 10.2 is severable from rest of the Agreement and shall remain in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 effect even if this Agreement is terminated for any reason”. 21. From the bare reading of the arbitration clause, which provides that all the disputes or differences between the parties regarding the interpretation or implementation of the agreement shall at first be resolved through good faith, negotiations between the parties’ Senior officials. If the parties were unable to resolve the dispute in question, within fourteen business days of the commencement of negotiation in terms of Clause 10.2.1, then the disputes were to be referred to the arbitration for determination in accordance with the provisions of Clause 10.2 of the Settlement Agreement dated 28.12.2001. 22. The petitioners issued an arbitration notice to the respondents on 07.02.2025 vide Annexure “X” wherein it is mentioned that the petitioners, having regard to Clause 10.2 of the Settlement Agreement, had approached the respondents for impartial and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 fair negotiations. However, the same ended without any results. Therefore, the mutual negotiation option deemed to have been failed in view of the persistent oral request made by the petitioners. The respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice dated 07.02.2025 and did not consent for the appointment of arbitrator. 23. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause in the Settlement Agreement and an arbitral dispute arose between the parties to the petition and the same must be resolved through Arbitration. Hence, the petitioners have made out grounds to refer the disputes to the arbitrator in terms of Clause 10.2 of the Settlement Agreement dated 28.12.2021. 24. In view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 25. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (ii) Hon'ble Justice Sri. Anand Byrareddy, Former Judge, the High Court of Karnataka, is nominated as Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties in terms of Clause 10.2 of the Settlement Agreement dated 28.12.2021, and as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules. (iii) The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. (iv) The Office is directed to return the original documents, if any, to the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25032 CMP No. 135 of 2025 petitioners after retaining a photocopy of the same. (v) In view of the disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of. (vi) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK (online) CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 Page No.17 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 25.07.2025