- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1031 CMP No. 100008 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL MISC PETITION NO. 100008 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SITSON INDIA LTD (FORMERLY SITSON INDIA PVT. LTD.,) W-76, M.I.D.C., PHASE II DOMBIVI (E)-421204, DIST: THANE MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. ARBIND B. PRASAD, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, SRI. AMOL NEHRU TEJAS JAGTAP, SMT. ANUSHKA JADHAV, ADVOCATES) AND: SHRI SANGAM SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARAKHANE NIYAMIT (“SSSSK”) REPRESENTED THROUGH MR. K.L. SHRINIVAS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF SSSSK NIYAMIT HIDKAL DAM -591107, HUKKERI TALUKA, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT.F.GOUDAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES, AND ALL DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT, ARISING OUT OF AND /OR IN RELATION TO ANY MATTERS UNDER Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1031 CMP No. 100008 of 2024 THE AGREEMENTS (ANNEXURE-B AND C) BE REFERRED TO ARBITRATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND THE PARTIES BE PERMITTED THAT THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS BE CONDUCTED IN BELAGAVI OR SUCH OTHER PLACE AS MAY BE CONVENIENT TO BOTH THE PARTIES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the two in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Prashant S. Hosamani, Sri.Amol Nehru, Sri.Tejas Jagatap and Smt.Anushka Jadhav, appearing for petitioners and learned counsel Sri.Prashant F. Goudar, appearing for respondents. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1031 CMP No. 100008 of 2024 3. The petitioner and the respondent enter into a supply agreement on 27.05.2018 for a particular sum. It is averment of the petitioner in the petition that the petitioners is performed all his obligations under the agreement and commissioned the plant despite non receipt of payments. Long thereafter, a notice is caused upon the respondent on 10.10.2023 claiming certain payments that are in due from the hands of the respondent and also seeks appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 20 of the agreement entered into between the parties. Non consideration of the plea of the petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the dispute in terms of Clause 20 is arbitrable. There is admittedly a dispute subsisting between the two with regard to certain payments not being made by the respondents to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1031 CMP No. 100008 of 2024 petitioner. Therefore he would seek a direction at the hands of this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator. 5. Learned counsel Shri.Prashanth F. Goudar representing respondents submits that the petitioner has abandoned appended the project three years prior to causing of the notice itself and therefore the plea is barred by limitation and this Court should not entertain the petition seeking to appoint an Arbitrator. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The afore narrated facts or the agreement between the parties is not in dispute. The agreements between the parties are two in number. Both the agreements, is an admitted fact, that has Clause of arbitration, to arbitrate the dispute, between the two, if any. The issue would be with regard to the objection of limitation by the respondent, as the contention is that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1031 CMP No. 100008 of 2024 petitioner has abandoned the project in the year 2020 itself and is not entitled to any payment that he is seeking to. These matters are to be decided by the Arbitrator. The issue of limitation projected can also be gone into by the Arbitrator, is a settled principle of law in the light of the Judgment rendered to the Apex Court in the case of VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERS Vs. DURGA TRADING CORPORATION1, the Apex Court held as follows: “148. Section 43(1) o the Arbitration Act states that the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to court proceedings. Sub- section (2) states that for the purposes of the Arbitration Act and Limitation Act, arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced on the date referred to in Section 21. Limitation law is procedural and normally disputes, being factual, would be for the arbitrator to decide guided by the facts found and the law applicable. The court at the referral stage can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are ex facie time-barred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute. All other cases should be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal for 1 (2021) 2 SCC 1. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1031 CMP No. 100008 of 2024 decision on merits. Similar would be the position in case of disputed "no-claim certificate" or defence on the plea of novation and "accord and satisfaction". As observed in Premium Nafta Products Ltd., it is not to be expected that commercial men while entering transactions inter se would knowingly create a system which would require that the court should first decide whether the contract should be rectified or avoided or rescinded, as the case may be, and then if the contract is held to be valid, it would require the arbitrator to resolve the issues that have arisen. 8. Both the learned counsel would submit that if Hon’ble Justice A.S.Pachchapure, Former High Court Judge should be appointed as an Arbitrator. 9. In that light, I deem it appropriate to appoint Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.S. Pachchapure, Former High Court Judge as an Arbitrator to enter into the dispute and arbitrate upon the same. Accepting the proposed name of the Arbitrator. 10. Both the learned counsel in unison submit that if the seat of Arbitration would be at Belagavi, it would be - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1031 CMP No. 100008 of 2024 helpful for both the parties and even the Arbitrator. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the seat of Arbitration to be at Belagavi. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed, appointing Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S.Pachchapure, Former High Court Judge, “Shiva-Gouri”, CTS No.7669, Sector No.12, Ganesh Marg, M.M. Extension, Belagavi-590 016, as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the parties and conduct proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Belagavi according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1031 CMP No. 100008 of 2024 [b] All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. [c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and to the Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S.Pachchapure, Former High Court Judge, “Shiva-Gouri”, CTS No.7669, Sector No.12, Ganesh Marg, M.M. Extension, Belagavi-590 016 as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11