- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51541 CMP No. 98 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 98 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S MILESTONE AUMINIUM COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. B-171/202, 4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 560058 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MRS. ZEBA ANWAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED AKMAL HASAN RAZVI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S AISHWARYA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, AHUJA CHAMBERS FLAT NO. 204, 11TH FLOOR, NO. 1 KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. R. CHANDRU, …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHRIKAR A J., ADVOCATE) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF ARBITRATION AND RECONCILIATION ACT, 1996 R/W CLAUSE 2 OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT MR. VEERRANNA TIGADI RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY AS PER THE UN NUMBERED CLAUSE ON PAGE 6 OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 21.02.2024, AND PAGE 18 OF THIS PETITION WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE B. ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEREIN AND GRANT Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51541 CMP No. 98 of 2025 SUCH OTHER RELIEF’S AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HONBLE COURT 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: Wherefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint Mr Verranna Tigadi Retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator for recovery of Money as per the un numbered clause on page 6 of the Work Order dated 21-02-2024, which and page 18 of this petition which is produced as Annexure 'B' issued by the respondent for adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the Parties herein and grant such other reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court` 2. A work order had been issued by the respondent to the petitioner on 21.2.2024 which is governed by an arbitration clause, which is reproduced hereunder for your reference: “Settlement of Disputes: In the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to this work order, the dispute shall be settled through a sole arbitrator mutually agreed by both the parties. The provisions as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 shall apply for such arbitration. The venue of Arbitration shall be Bengaluru.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51541 CMP No. 98 of 2025 3. The petitioner had issued a notice making its claim on 04.03.2024, which was replied to by the respondents on 15.02.2024 indicating that none of the claims are payable. Hence, a notice came to be issued by the petitioner on 13.09.2024 invoking the arbitration clause and nominating its arbitrator, which again came to be replied by the respondents stating that they are not agreeable to the person named in the arbitration notice as an arbitrator. In that background the petitioner had approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Notice having been ordered, respondent has entered appearance. During pendency of the above matter the petitioner was admitted to Insolvency Resolution Process, where IRP has been appointed. IRP has now authorized the counsel for the petitioner to appear in the matter and prosecute the matter. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51541 CMP No. 98 of 2025 5. Insofar as the arbitration clause is concerned and the work order which has been issued, there is no dispute on the part of the respondent. The only issue is as regard whether the IRP has authorized the petitioner to continue to prosecute the present matter or not. The authorisation letter having been produced, it has been issued by the IRP. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the same would have to be accepted at this stage subject to evidence being led to the contra before the arbitrator if so led by the respondent. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) CMP is allowed. ii) Sri.Laxman Rao Miskin, a Former District Judge of the District Judiciary, State of Karnataka is appointed as a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties under the aegis of the Arbitration Centre attached to this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51541 CMP No. 98 of 2025 iii) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director, Arbitration & Conciliation Centre for doing the needful. iv) Since the order is passed in the presence of both the counsels, the counsels are directed to appear before the Director, Arbitration & Conciliation Centre without requirement of any notice at 2.30 p.m. on 12.01.2026. v) All contentions are left open. vi) Registry is directed to return the original and/or certified copies, if produced, to the respective parties who have produced it/them by following due procedure. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56