- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18774 CMP No. 553 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 553 OF 2021 BETWEEN: LOUIS BERGER CONSULTING PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT REGUS BUSINESS CENTRE, LEVEL 3, VASANT SQUARE MALL POCKET, V SECTOR B, NEW DELHI 110070. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHESHAGIRI., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. WADIA TECHNO-ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT NEVILLE HOUSE, J N HEREDIA ROAD, BALLARD PIER, MUMBAI 400001. 2. MANGALURU SMART CITY LTD THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18774 CMP No. 553 of 2021 2ND FLOOR CITY CORPORATION, M G ROAD, LALBHAG, MANGALURU 575003. 3. CENTRE FOR ADVANCE COMPUTING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CAMPUS OF UNIVERSITY OF PUNE PUNE - 411 007. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO A. ALLOW THE PRESENT APPLICATION AND APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR AS PER CONTRACT AGREEMENT DATED 26/04/2017, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, AS THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO ACT AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, TO ADJUDICATE AND DECIDE UPON THE DISPUTES WHICH HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18774 CMP No. 553 of 2021 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who has caused Notice dated 30.04.2021 raising a monetary claim, has also caused notice dated 25.05.2021 for adjudication of the claim relying upon the Agreement dated 26.04.2017. These Notices are addressed to the first respondent alone, but the petition is filed as against the second and third respondents as well. Further, the petitioner under the Notice dated 25.05.2021 has not nominated the Arbitrator. Be these as it may, Sri Ajay J Nandalike, the learned counsel for the second respondent, supported by Sri M N Kumar, a learned Senior standing Counsel for the third respondent, submits [a] the second respondent has called for tenders and a Consortium comprising the petitioner, the first and third respondents have responded successfully [b] the tendered work is executed and the first respondent, in terms of the inter-se Agreement has received all the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18774 CMP No. 553 of 2021 monies, [c] even if there can be any dispute, it could only be between the petitioner and the first respondent and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the second, or the third respondent, to answer the petitioner9s claim. None appears for the petitioner, and it is seen from the proceedings that there is continued absence. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be rejected, and it stands rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-