- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40098 CMP No. 164 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.164 OF 2022 BETWEEN: M/S. VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD., YALACHAHALLY INDUSTRIAL AREA, TAVAREKERE POST, HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE-562 122. REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL COUNSEL SHRI. YOGESH NAIK …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATHI SUBBARAYA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. SUNDARI BALACHANDER, W/O. SRI. BALACHANDER NO.16, 1ST MAIN ROAD, DR. M. V. JAYARAMAN ROAD, OPP: KODAVA SAMAJ, VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 052. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEEPAK BHASKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11(5) AND (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT SHRI KUKKAJE R. BHAT, AS SOLE ARBITRATOR OR ANY OTHER ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40098 CMP No. 164 of 2022 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER COMPANY AND RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 27/06/2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. 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 relief: "WHEREFORE, the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint Shri Kukkaje R Bhat, as sole Arbitrator or any other Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner company and respondent in terms of the Lease Deed dated 27.06.2015 as per Annexure-A and grant such other or further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity." 2. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into a lease deed on 27.06.2015, the respondent being the lessor and the petitioner being the lessee for lease of the property bearing apartment No.143, Tower 1, Pebble Bay, RMV 2nd stage, Bangalore-560066 on various terms and conditions as contained therein. Clause No.12 of the said agreement as contended by the petitioner to be an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40098 CMP No. 164 of 2022 arbitration clause which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference. "12. Any dispute with regard to the Agreement shall be subject to arbitration at Bangalore in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. If the dispute is not resolved through arbitration then the same shall be referred to Court having Jurisdiction at Bangalore." 3. Contending that the said clause is an arbitration clause, the petitioner had issued a notice on 16.08.2019. Initially, a notice had been issued on 16.08.2019 by the petitioner making claim of various amounts which was replied to by the respondent denying the contentions on 28.08.2019. Hence, the petitioner on 20.06.2020 invoking the said clause No.12 had nominated Sri.Kukkaje.R.Bhat, Retired District and Sessions Judge as an arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute. No reply has been received. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing the above petition. Notice having been issued to the respondent, respondent had entered appearance and filed objections. 4. The submission of Sri.Deepak Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said clause No.12 is not a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40098 CMP No. 164 of 2022 definitive agreement between the parties agreeing to be bound by the methodology of arbitration. He seeks to distinguish clause No.12 into two portions. He submits that though the first portion refers to any dispute under the agreement to be subject to arbitration in Bengaluru in accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the second portion he submits takes away the import of the arbitration inasmuch as it is stated that if the dispute is not resolved through arbitration, then the same shall be referred to Court having jurisdiction in Bengaluru. On that basis, his contention is that there is no definitive agreement between the parties that the dispute would be resolved only through the methodology of arbitration. 5. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. SMS Limited arising out of SLP(C)No.16913/2017, more particularly Para No.30 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "30. Considering the global position on the validity of arbitration agreements with the settled law that holds the field in India, we find that the existence of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40098 CMP No. 164 of 2022 an arbitration agreement necessarily postulates the presence of the following ingredients: i. Clear Intent to Arbitrate The agreement must reflect a definitive and mutual intention to refer disputes to arbitration, excluding the jurisdictions of civil courts in respect of such matters. Consensus ad-idem or 'meeting of the minds' of the respective parties towards settling any disputes that may arise between them through the process of arbitration must be made out from the form and substance of the legal agreement of contract. This ideally entails the parties reducing their intention of entering into an arbitration agreement into some tangible medium. ii. Binding Adjudicatory Process The arbitration agreement must contemplate a binding and enforceable resolution of disputes. The process must culminate in a final and conclusive award, not a non-binding recommendation or mediation outcome. In essence, the result of the arbitral process should be final and binding on both the parties. iii. Compliance with Arbitration Norms While the statutory minimums do not universally require specification of seat, venue, or applicable procedural rules, best practices and several foreign jurisdictions encourage clarity in these respects to ensure legal certainty. The agreement should allow for party autonomy in the appointment of arbitrators and procedural conduct, subject to statutory safeguards. The adversarial process, which inheres in the institution of arbitration, must also be given due credence via provision for an impartial adjudicatory body, whose decisions involve deference to the principles of natural justice.” 6. By relying on the above extracted paragraph, his submission is that there must be a clear intent to arbitrate. There should be a consensus ad idem between - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40098 CMP No. 164 of 2022 the parties that the only methodology of settlement would be by way of arbitration which is required to be binding adjudicative process. Without there being binding, the question of arbitration would not arise. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, what is required is for this Court to consider the effect and purport of clause No.12 which has been reproduced hereinabove. 8. The execution of the agreement is not in dispute. It is only the interpretation of clause No.12 which is in dispute. A perusal of clause No.12 would indicate categorically that any dispute with regard to the agreement shall be subject to arbitration at Bengaluru in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is the second portion which is sought to be relied upon by Sri.Deepak Bhaskar to contend that if the dispute is not resolved by arbitration, then the same shall be referred to Court having jurisdiction at Bengaluru. The word resolved is sought to be interpreted by him to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40098 CMP No. 164 of 2022 contend that the resolution if not done by arbitration, still the matter would have to be referred to a Court having jurisdiction at Bengaluru. Therefore, there is no binding arbitration clause with a clear intention. 9. This I am unable to agree to, since there is a clear and categorical agreement between the parties that any dispute with regard to the agreement would be subject to arbitration at Bengaluru in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Passing of an award by itself would not amount to resolution of the dispute per se, the award would have to be enforced through an execution proceedings. The execution of that award passed by the arbitral Tribunal would have to go before the Court having jurisdiction at Bengaluru which is what in my considerable opinion is referred to in the second portion of clause No.12. The same would not amount to a situation where after an arbitration, the matter would have to again be placed before the Civil Court for fresh adjudication. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40098 CMP No. 164 of 2022 10. What is used is the word resolved and not adjudication. Therefore, the adjudication of the dispute by way of arbitration is clearly contained in the first portion of clause No.12. In that view of the matter, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted by this Court. 11. Considering that the dispute is between a landlord and tenant and the quantum of dispute is only a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-, I am of the opinion that the matter could be first referred to mediation and if mediation were to fail, then to arbitration. When this proposal was put across to both the counsels, both the counsels have whole heartedly agreed to the same. 12. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Registry is directed to place the above file before the Director, Karnataka Mediation Centre for appointment of a suitable mediator to mediate the dispute between the parties. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40098 CMP No. 164 of 2022 (ii) Since the order is passed in the presence of both the counsels, the parties shall appear before the Director, Karnataka Mediation Centre, without requirement of any further notice on 27.10.2025 at 2.30 p.m, who is directed to appoint a suitable mediator. (iii) In the event of the mediation not being successful, in that event Sri.D.T.Puttaranga Swamy, a former District Judge of the District Judiciary is appointed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties under the ease of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. (iv) In the event of the mediation failing, the parties within 15 days shall appear before the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, for the Director to issue necessary formal orders as regards the conduct of the arbitration. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE NS CT:TSMList No.: 1 Sl No.: 9