Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 89403 (KAR)

SRI. K. M. PRASANNA KUMAR v. M/S. PISCES ESERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

CMP/140/2024 · 2025-12-12

Suraj Govindaraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53634 CMP No. 140 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 140 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. K. M. PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. LATE K. C. MALLAPPA REDDY RESIDING AT NO. 153 19TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYARAJ D S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. PISCES ESERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED HEAD OFFICE PLOT NO. 82-A, SECTOR 18 GURGAON, HARYANA-212015 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. GAURAV MEHTA AGED ABOUT MAJOR. 2. M/S. PISCES ESERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED NO. 525/2, CORPORATION NO.1 III ROAD, K.R. GARDEN 80 FEET ROAD, 8TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, WARD NO. 67 BENGALURU-560093 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. SHARAD GOYAL FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR. …RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996PRAYING TO APPOINT AN IMPARTIAL ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE ARBITRAL Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53634 CMP No. 140 of 2024 DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT AS PER CLAUSE NOS. 19 AND 19.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A (SERIES), IN VIEW OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT DATED:12.02.2019, THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, 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 an impartial Arbitrator to adjudicate the arbitral dispute between the petitioner and respondent as per clause Nos. 19 and 19.1 vide Annexure-A (series), in view of Arbitration Agreement Dated:12.02.2019, b. Pass any other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Despite the order dated 21.11.2025, the correct and proper address has not been furnished. 3. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 119