- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49771 CMP No. 451 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 451 OF 2025 BETWEEN: ROYAL ORCHID ASSOCIATED HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES, ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 1, GOLF AVENUE, AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI, OFF BANGALORE 560 008. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY - MR. AMIT JAISWAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M V., ADVOCATE) AND: ABSS HOTELS PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT JOYGACHI, NETAJI MURTI HOUSE NO. 298/288, JESSORE ROAD, HABRA PARGANAS NORTH -743263, WEST BENGAL REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - MR. BINAY PATRA …RESPONDENT THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996., PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49771 CMP No. 451 of 2025 FIT, AND REFER THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN RELATION TO THE HOTEL OPERATION AGREEMENT DATED 4.11.2021 (ANNEXURE-C) TO ARBITRATION, AS PER CLAUSE XXVIII (28) OF THE SAID AGREEMENT. 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, a sole Arbitrator as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, and refer the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Hotel Operation Agreement dated 04.11.2021 (Annexure- C) to arbitration; as per clause XXVIII (28) of the said agreement. (b) DIRECT the Respondents to pay the costs of these proceedings; (c) GRANT such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into a Hotel Operation Agreement on 04.11.2021, which is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of Article 28, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES 1. In the event of any dispute, claim, question, or disagreement arising from or relating to this agreement or the breach thereof, the parties hereto shall use their best efforts to settle the dispute, claim, question, or disagreement. To this effect, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49771 CMP No. 451 of 2025 they shall consult and negotiate with each other in good faith and, recognizing their mutual Interests, attempt to reach a just and equitable solution satisfactory to both parties. The parties agree to meet to pursue resolution through negotiation before resorting to litigation. If they do not reach such solution within a period of 30 days, then, upon notice by either party to the other, all disputes, claims, questions, or differences shall be referred to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The venue of the arbitration shall be at Bangalore. The proceedings of arbitration shall be conducted in English by a sole arbitrator jointly appointed by the Parties. If the Parties fail to mutually agree on an arbitrator, the arbitrator shall be appointed in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The decision and award of arbitrator shall be binding upon both Owner and Operator. 3. Except the matter in controversy or dispute, all other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, pending the award of the arbitration proceedings. 4. Subject to clauses above, all disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Bangalore Courts." 3. There being disputes between the parties, the petitioner apart from invoking the provision of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act,") has also issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act on 31.05.2025, nominating its arbitrator. 4. Notice which had been issued to the respondent, has been returned with an endorsement "refused." In that view of the matter, the said service of notice would have - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49771 CMP No. 451 of 2025 to be held to be sufficient. The respondent having refused the receipt of notice, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. Notice having been issued to the respondent by this Court, the respondent has chosen to be unrepresented. In that background, the above petition was taken up for hearing. 6. A perusal of the Hotel Operation Agreement clearly and categorically indicates that the same is governed by an arbitration agreement. The notice having been issued to the respondent, though it has been returned with the endorsement "refused," the service would have to be held sufficient. There being no representation after service of notice by this Court, the petitioner having chosen to be unrepresented and not to contest the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petition is required to be allowed. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i) The CMP is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49771 CMP No. 451 of 2025 ii) Sri Ganesh Kuruvatti, a retired District Judge 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 11.12.2025 at 2.30 p.m. 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 GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51