- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46723 CMP No. 227 of 2025 C/W CMP No. 229 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. 227 OF 2025 C/W CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 229 OF 2025 IN CMP No. 227/2025 BETWEEN: B R TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, STREET/HOUSE NO.048, FIRST FLOOR, SECTION-47D, CHANDIGARH- 160 047 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. GAJENDRA SINGH …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUPA RON, ADVOCATE) AND: WIPRO LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DODDAKANNELI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) AND 11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT., PRAYING TO APPOINT A RETIRED JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT TO ACT AS A SOLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF CLAUSE NO.19 (iii) OF THE MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT DATED 1.08.2014 AT ANNEXURE-A AS AMENDED BY THE AGREEMENT DATED 1.04.2018 AT ANNEXURE-B Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46723 CMP No. 227 of 2025 C/W CMP No. 229 of 2025 AND IN TERMS OF SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 TO ENTER REFERENCE AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IN CMP NO. 229/2025 BETWEEN: MR MADAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O MR. KANWAR SINGH, PROPRIETOR RAJDHANI TRAVELS, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT C-4, SECTOR 36, GREATER NOIDA, GOUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, GREATER NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH - 201 308. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUPA RON, ADVOCATE) AND: WIPRO LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DODDAKANELI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU 560 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996., PRAYING TO APPOINT A RETIRED JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT TO ACT AS A SOLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 19 OF THE MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT DATED 1.08.2014 AS AMENDED BY THE AGREEMENT DATED 1.04.2018 AND IN TERMS OF SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 VIDE ANNEXURES A AND B RESPECTIVELY TO ENTER REFERENCE AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46723 CMP No. 227 of 2025 C/W CMP No. 229 of 2025 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner in CMP No.227/2025 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a. Appoint a retired judge of this Honble Court to act as a sole arbitrator in terms of clause No.19 (iii) of the master services agreement dated 1.08.2014 at Annexure-A as amended by the agreement dated 1.04.2018 at annexure-b and in terms of section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 to enter reference and adjudicate the dispute and differences between the parties, and b. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioner in CMP No.229/2025 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a. Appoint a retired judge of this Honble court to act as a sole arbitrator in terms of clause 19 of the master services agreement dated 1.08.2014 as amended by the agreement dated 1.04.2018 and in terms of section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 vide Annexures A And B respectively to enter reference and adjudicate the dispute and differences between the parties; and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46723 CMP No. 227 of 2025 C/W CMP No. 229 of 2025 b. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 3. The petitioner and respondent had entered into a Master Service Agreement on 01.08.2014 which is governed by an arbitration Clause in terms of Clause 19 (ii) thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 19. (ii) All disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or an SOW shall be finally settled under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (including amendments thereto), by a single arbitrator appointed mutually by the Parties. 4. Contending that are disputes that have arisen between the parties, the petitioner, through its advocate , on 13.10.2022 , invoking the arbitration Clause, issued a notice. 5. The petitioner had initially approached the High Court of Allahabad in Arbitration Conciliation Application No.36 of 2023 which came to be disposed on the ground that the jurisdiction will be at Bangalore, Karnataka. In that background, notice having been - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46723 CMP No. 227 of 2025 C/W CMP No. 229 of 2025 issued to respondent, respondent has entered appearance. 6. Sri.P.N.Manmohan., learned counsel for respondent would submit that; 6.1. The notice dated 13.10.2022 has not been received by the respondent , and as such, there is no compliance as regards Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 6.2. Secondly, he submits that the notice does not indicate any nomination of arbitrator. A request having been made for respondents to appoint an arbitrator, the said notice not having been received by respondent, notice is improper and further proceedings cannot be continued. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would however submit that; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46723 CMP No. 227 of 2025 C/W CMP No. 229 of 2025 7.1. There being dispute between the parties, the disputes being known to both the parties, the petitioner had called upon the respondent to appoint an independent sole arbitrator, giving the choice to the respondents, it was for the respondent to appoint the arbitrator. 7.2. Insofar as service of notice is concerned, she submits that she has filed a memo enclosing the postal receipts. 8. It is in that background, that this limited question would have to be considered by this Court. Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 21. Commencement of arbitral proceedings.— Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent. 9. Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for issuance of notice by invoking the arbitration Clause for issuance of notice would have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46723 CMP No. 227 of 2025 C/W CMP No. 229 of 2025 to be considered in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, more particularly in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 which requires that, if a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days from the receipt of a request to do so from the other party, the appointment shall be made on an application of the party to the arbitral institution designated by the supreme Court in the case of International Commercial Arbitration or by High Court in case of arbitration other than International Commercial Arbitration, as the case may be. 10. In the present case, the notice under Section 21 has not been served calling upon the respondent to nominate the arbitrator inasmuch as there is no acknowledgement which has been placed on record by the petitioner, what is placed on record is only the postal receipt. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46723 CMP No. 227 of 2025 C/W CMP No. 229 of 2025 11. In that background, firstly there is no nomination as such made by the petitioner in the notice nominating any person as an arbitrator. Secondly, the said notice not having been served, the requirement of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 is not fulfilled. 12. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the objections raised by the respondent though hyper technical in nature, the respondents are entitled to take up such contention in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 and as such, I pass the following; ORDER CMPs are dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to issue fresh and proper notice in due compliance with applicable laws. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40