- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46840 CMP No. 244 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 244 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MOTO BUSINESS SERVICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SALARPURIA ANNEX, 2ND FLOOR, 1, LUSKAR, HOSUR ROAD CHIKKU LAKSHMAIAH LAYOUT KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 030 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. AAYUSH SINHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O MR. RAJESH KUMAR SINHA ALSO AT # 7, THALANKI VILLA WALTON ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUKESH KUMAR P D.,ADVOCATE) AND: SIGRID SPECTRUM CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 2236, 23RD CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560070 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46840 CMP No. 244 of 2025 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO i. APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF THE CLAUSE 15.1 OF THE E SCOOTER AND E-3 WHEELER CARGO LEASING AGREEMENT DATED 29.06.2022 ii. DIRECT CONSTITUTION OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AS AMENDED TILL DATE AND ETC. 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; " i. Appoint a sole arbitrator in terms of the clause 15.1 of the e scooter and e-3 wheeler cargo leasing agreement dated 29.06.2022. ii. Direct Constitution of the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 as amended till date; iii. Pass such further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts of the case.” 2. The Petitioner and the Respondent entered into E-Scooter and E-3 Wheeler Cargo Leasing Agreement - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46840 CMP No. 244 of 2025 on 29.06.2022, which is governed by an Arbitration Clause in terms of Clause 15: 15. “Dispute Resolution: 15.1. All disputes and differences arising out of or in connection with this Agreement including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination (“Dispute”), if not resolved by amicable settlement within 30 (thirty) days from the issuance of notice regarding the dispute by either of the Party, shall be referred to an finally resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any enactments in substitution thereof (“Act”). 15.2. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator as mutually appointed by the Parties. In the event the Parties are unable to reach a consensus on appointment of such sole arbitrator within 21 (twenty-one) days of a Party issuing a notice for arbitration relating to a Dispute, such sole arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the Act; a) The seat, or legal place of arbitration shall be Bengaluru. b) The language to be used in the arbitration shall be the English language; and c) The arbitrator shall be entitled to award costs of the arbitration.” 3. The Petitioner had issued a notice on 03.03.2025 invoking the Arbitration Clause contending that there is no consent or concurrence on the part of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46840 CMP No. 244 of 2025 respondent, the Petitioner is before this Court seeking to appoint a sole Arbitrator. 4. A perusal of the notice dated 03.03.2025 which has been issued by the Petitioner would only indicate that the Petitioner has invoked the Arbitration Clause and has not nominated any Arbitrator for the purpose of Respondent consenting to the appointment of the said Arbitrator. 5. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the notice issued is not in conformity with Sections 21 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the petition stands disposed reserving liberty to the Petitioner to issue a fresh and proper notice. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43