- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41986 CMP No. 510 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 510 OF 2024 BETWEEN: ACE TURTLE OMNI PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 2013 REPRESENTED BY MR.NITIN CHHABRA, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE NO. 701-714, 7TH FLOOR, TOWER C, DIAMOND DISTRICT PID, AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI BENGALURU - 560 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANTH V.G, ADVOCATE) AND: THASHI VENTURES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MS. THANUSHREE S HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 633, E AND F BLOCK, PANCHAMANTRA CROSS ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 023. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41986 CMP No. 510 of 2024 THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11 (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996. PRAYING TO (A) APPOINT MR. PRADEEP NAIK, ADVOCATE, PARTNER AT KEYSTONE PARTNER, BANGALORE, AS HEAD BEEN NOMINATED BY THE PETITIONER IN ITS NOTICE DATED 17.05.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE E OR ANY SUCH OTHER SUITABLE INDIVIDUAL AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT DATED 01.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE B EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) Appoint Mr. Pradeep Naik, Advocate, Partner at Keystone Partners, Bangalore, as had been nominated by the Petitioner in its notice dated 17.05.2024 vide Annexure E or any such other suitable individual as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the Franchise Agreement dated 01.09.2022 vide Annexure B clause 15 of the Agreement executed between the Petitioner Clause 15 of the Agreement and the Respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41986 CMP No. 510 of 2024 (b) Pass further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into a franchise agreement, which is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of Clause 15, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 15. ARBITRATION In the event of any dispute, difference, claim or question arising out of or in relation to or in connection with the Agreement touching any matter during the continuance of this Agreement or after termination thereof, such disputes or difference shall be referred to arbitration by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Company, to be conducted as per The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The venue of the Arbitration shall be Bangalore. Nothing herein contained shall bar Company's right to obtain injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause it loss or damages, under the usual equity rules, including the applicable rules for obtaining restraining orders and preliminary injunctions." 3. There being a dispute between the parties' correspondence with the exchange in relation thereto. Finally, the petitioner, by way of its letter dated 17.05.2024, invoked the arbitration clause and appointed its arbitrator. In reply thereto, the respondent, in his reply notice dated 16.06.2024, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41986 CMP No. 510 of 2024 denied the contents thereof and contended that the matter cannot be referred to arbitration. It is in that background that no consensus having arrived at, the petitioner has approached the Court. 4. Notice having been issued to the respondent, the respondent though served, has chosen to remain unrepresented. 5. Having gone through the agreement and the arbitration clause, which has been reproduced hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent by having invoked the arbitral clause in terms of the letter issued by the petitioner to the respondent. 6. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) CMP is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41986 CMP No. 510 of 2024 ii) Sri H.C.Sham Prasad, a former District Judge of the District Judiciary is appointed as a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties under the aegis of the Arbitration Centre attached to this Court. iii) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre for doing the needful. iv) Since the order is passed in the presence of both the counsel, they shall appear before the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre without requirement of any notice on 05.11.2025 at 2.30 p.m. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40