- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30076 WP No. 14462 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14462 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. HEALTH AND GLOW PVT. LTD., (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S. FOODWORLD SUPERMARKETS PVT. LTD.) A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT SITE NO. 32/5, 2ND FLOOR, GANAPA TOWERS, NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA, BOMMANAHALLI, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 068, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. SACHITH ANTONY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARIKRISHNA PRAMOD.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M S RAGHU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. SRI. M. SUBBARAJU, RESIDING AT NO. 61, AGS LAYOUT, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE-560 054. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30076 WP No. 14462 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226A AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.03.2025 PASSED IN A.C NO. 173/2024 PASSED BY THE LD. SOLE ARBITRATOR SRI. D.R.VENKATASUDARSHAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, BEFORE THE KARNATAKA ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, AT BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A); CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE HONBLE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO PASS ORDERS ON MERITS ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE SAID APPLICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30076 WP No. 14462 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner and the respondent are parties to the arbitral proceedings in AC No.173/2024 pending before a learned Arbitrator who is deciding on the dispute in terms of the Rules applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru [Domestic and International]. The learned Arbitrator has dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 16 and 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reasoning thus: "29. The respondent contends that since the Lease agreement which requires registration compulsorily has not been registered it should be considered as month to tenancy which is created by operation of law as such a fresh agreement of month-to- month tenancy is created which does not contain arbitration agreement. This contention is based on the principle of Novation of contract. Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act which deals with "Tenant by Holding over" provides that such a month-to-month tenancy is only a renewal. The point that requires - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30076 WP No. 14462 of 2025 consideration here is whether this amounts to a new contract or renewal of the contract already entered into. In this context it may not be out of place to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1972 SC 819 on this aspect. Be that as it may. This aspect needs consideration only after the trial. 30. All the above said contentions raised above by the parties are to be decided while adjudicating the dispute on merits. this tribunal is constituted for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute between the parties. It is a judicial process which has to be done in accordance with the provisions of A & C Act and other laws governing the situation. All these contentions can be considered only during the full dressed trial. The tribunal appointed by the Hon'ble High Court has Jurisdiction to go into these matters and adjudicate it on merits. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the tribunal has no jurisdiction cannot be accepted." The underlining is by this Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30076 WP No. 14462 of 2025 Sri Harikrishna Pramod, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner requests intervention only for an observation that the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner in filing the application is not foreclosed by this order lest there be another area of controversy for decision in the pending arbitral proceedings. Sri Siddartha Suman, the learned counsel for the respondent, is heard. This Court on perusal of the aforesaid reasoning, is of the considered view that the arbitral Tribunal has not foreclosed the question of jurisdiction and it is open for decision. The petition stands disposed of observing accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV