- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39081 WP No. 33607 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33607 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S SUPER THREADS INDIA A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.6 PALGOTHA PLAZA, ASHRAM ROAD, LALABAGH ROAD, 4TH CROSS, DOUBLE ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU -560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR LALIT KUMAR JAIN …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHRUV M PATWARI., ADVOCATE) AND: H L L LIFECARE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT: NO.7/1594, KANAGALA FACTORY, KANAGALA, BELGAUM KARNATAKA-591225 REPRESENTED BY THEIR MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MURALI B S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION QUASHING THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS IN EX.NO. 16/2023 PENDING BEFORE CH-16 CITY CIVIL COURT, BANGALORE (ANNX-J) AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39081 WP No. 33607 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the City Civil Court, Bangalore (CCH-16) in Execution Petition No.16/2023, by which, it rejected the objections raised by the petitioner that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 2. (i) The facts in brief are that the respondent herein filed O.S.No.59/2015 before the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,48,497/-. The respondent filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1996' for short) for appointment of an arbitrator. The Court after perusing the covenants contained in the agreement, held that there was a covenant in the agreement providing for resolution of disputes through arbitration. Accordingly, it allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and appointed an advocate as an arbitrator to settle the dispute. The arbitrator entered reference and passed an ex-parte award directing the petitioner to pay a sum of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39081 WP No. 33607 of 2024 Rs.9,48,497/- along with interest at 12% per annum from 01.05.2015 till realization with cost. This award was sought to be executed in Execution Petition No.16/2023. (ii) The petitioner herein entered appearance and filed objections to the Execution Petition contending that the award passed by the arbitrator was a nullity since his appointment was not in accordance with law. The Executing Court, held in terms of the impugned order that the petitioner had not taken any steps in accordance with law to challenge the award and that it had filed preliminary objections in the execution petition long after the award was passed and therefore, it rejected the objections filed by the petitioner in terms of the impugned order. The petitioner is therefore aggrieved by the aforesaid order and is before this Court challenging the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, 1996, as it is only the Chief Justice or the designate of the Chief Justice who is entitled to appoint an arbitrator, more particularly when there is no consensus between the petitioner and the respondent over the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39081 WP No. 33607 of 2024 appointment of an arbitrator and when there was no named arbitrator in the agreement. He contends that the award being a nullity in the eye of law could be challenged in any proceedings including incidental or collateral proceedings and the executing Court was bound to consider the same in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the claim before the Civil Court was just and proper, as disputes between the petitioner and the respondent were to be adjudicated by the Court in Hukkeri. He therefore contends that the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Court at Hukkeri is just and proper. However, he fairly conceded that the Civil Court, Hukkeri, had no authority in law particularly under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an arbitrator. He also did not dispute the position of law that such invalid orders could be challenged even in collateral proceedings including in execution petition. 5. In view of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, 1996, nothing more needs to be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39081 WP No. 33607 of 2024 gone into in this writ petition. However, once the impugned order is passed by the Executing Court is set aside, this Court is bound to set aside the unenforceable award passed by the arbitrator and restore the proceedings before the Civil Court, Hukkeri so that the same could proceed in accordance with law. It is however open for the petitioner or respondent to invoke the arbitration clause and seek the appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with law under Section 11 of the Act, 1996. 6. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order passed by the Executing Court in Execution Petition No.16/2023 dated 05.12.2024 is quashed. Consequently, the award passed by the arbitrator is also declared invalid and unenforceable iii. As a result, the original suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.59/2015 is restored on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri. In order to expedite the suit, the petitioner as well as the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39081 WP No. 33607 of 2024 respondent are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 13.10.2025. iv. It is open for the petitioner and respondent to seek appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with law and as provided under Section 11 of the Act, 1996. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9