- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26467 CMP No. 4 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 4 OF 2026 BETWEEN: M/S DIVA AIR AND RESOURCES (RAICHUR) PVT LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 158/2, MAHARUDHRESHREWARA NAGAR 3RD BLOCK, KEMPAPURA ROAD, CHIKKABANAVARA, BANGALORE- 560090. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY.S.,ADVOCATE) AND: M/S.HUTTI GOLD MINES COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, KHB SHOPPING COMPLEX, NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560047. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26467 CMP No. 4 of 2026 (BY SRI.MAHESH CHOUDHARY., ADVOCATE) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND APPOINT SHRI JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT (FORMER JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA), AS A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARISING OUT OF AND IN CONNECTION TO TENDER AGREEMENTS DATED 10.11.2023, AS PER CLAUSE 1 ARBITRATION (VIDE ANNEXURE A AND A1), INCLUDING THE ISSUES SET OUT IN THE NOTICE DATED 03.12.2025, WITH SEAT AND VENUE AT BENGALURU AND THE LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS AS ENGLISH, AS PER THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND IN CONSONANCE WITH THE KARNATAKA ARBITRATION CENTRE (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL) RULES 2012. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has supplied Grinding Media Balls to the respondent after successful participation in a tender floated by the respondent. The petitioner asserts a dispute with the respondent alleging that the contract is illegally terminated and that it has sustainable claims for damages amongst others for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26467 CMP No. 4 of 2026 the illegal termination, for the delay in payment and for rejection of certain consignments. The petitioner has caused notice for arbitration dated 03.12.2025 proposing a panel of arbitrators including a former judge of this Court. The respondent has not issued any reply to this notice. 2. Sri Abhinay S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Mahesh Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent, categorically state that there is no dispute about the existence of the arbitration agreement, but Sri Mahesh Choudhary submits that the dispute is already adjudicated with the outcome in W.P. No. 19146/2024, which stands disposed of by the order dated 09.04.2025. 3. It is seen that the respondent, after rejecting the supply of consignment by the petitioner, has floated the Tender dated 16.03.2024 for the year 2023-24. The petitioner has called in question the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26467 CMP No. 4 of 2026 Tender dated 16.03.2024 in W.P.No. 19146/2024 contending essentially that the respondent has floated the tender after the impermissible rejection of the consignment and the cancellation of the agreement. The writ Court has referred a sample from the consignment for a scientific examination with M/s Raghavendra Spectro Metallurgical Laboratory. 4. The writ Court has called for this test in the light of the report relied upon by the petitioner from M/s Barath Metallurgical Laboratory to assert that there was no defect in the chemical composition of the grinding media balls delivered by the petitioner. The writ Court, based on the report from M/s Raghavendra Spectro Metallurgical Laboratory, has opined that the chemical composition is within the prescribed limits and therefore the respondent's decision to reject the consignment is arbitrary, irrational and untenable while quashing the grant of tendjmn er in favour of the third party calling upon - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26467 CMP No. 4 of 2026 the respondent to consider the bids offered by the petitioner. The respondent has filed a writ appeal in WA No.1068/2025 against this order in W.P. No. 19146/2024, and it is pending consideration. 5. The objection on behalf of the respondent is premised in the assertion that the writ Court's finding that the respondent's decision to reject the consignment is arbitrary and irrational is not the final word because it will be subject to the decision in the pending writ appeal and the decision there could bring about a closure to the dispute. However, this Court must opine that the writ Court's opinion on the merits of the respondent's decision to reject the consignment is in aid of the decision on whether the respondent should have floated a tender. The efficacy of this finding will indeed be examined in the pending Writ Appeal No.1068/2025. 6. Insofar as the consequence that could flow from such opinion for the adjudication of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26467 CMP No. 4 of 2026 petitioner's dispute with the respondent, this Court must observe that the dispute set up by the petitioner against the respondent includes monetary claims for the delayed payment, rejection of consignment and termination of the contract before the contractual period. This Court is of the definite view that the controversy presented in the writ petition and the writ Court's view cannot be conclusive on the expanse of the petitioner’s dispute that with the respondent. Therefore, the writ proceedings pending now in Writ Appeal No.1068/2025 cannot be a reason to reject this petition. 7. In the circumstances, the petition must be allowed appointing an arbitrator/panel of arbitrators observing that the efficacy of the writ Court's opinion insofar as the dispute that must be decided in the arbitral proceedings would be subject to any opinion expressed in the writ appeal. At this stage, both Sri - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26467 CMP No. 4 of 2026 Mahesh Choudhary and Sri Abhinay S are heard on whether there must be a panel of arbitrators or a sole arbitrator. The learned counsels are categorical that a sole arbitrator could be appointed with Sri Mahesh Choudhary stating that his statement in this regard is without prejudice to the respondents to call this Court's order in question. In the light of the afore, the following ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. [b] Sri P. Krishna Bhat, a former Judge of this Court, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26467 CMP No. 4 of 2026 governing the Centre. All questions are left open for due consideration. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV [c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order [by e-mail] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru and also to Sri P. Krishna Bhat, a former Judge of this Court, Address: Vasishta”, No.41, Near Ganesh Emerald, Judicial Layout, 3rd Phase, Hejjala, Bidadi, Bengaluru-562 109 [e-mail id: krishnabhat46@gmail.com] as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.