- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6947 CMP No. 182 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 182 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR K J RAMESH S/O SRI K.G. JAGANNATHA RAO, AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.39/1, SOUTH END ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE -560003 2. MR. K J RAVINDRA S/O SRI K G JAGANNATHA RAO, AGED 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.39, N.S. IYENGAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560020, ALSO AT 25, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S SHAKER SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR K J RAGHAVENDRA S/O SRI K G JAGANNATHA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT 51, SPANDANA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI EXTENSION DEVAIAH PARK, BENGALURU – 560021 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6947 CMP No. 182 of 2025 2. HOTEL RACEVIEW, REP. BY ITS PARTNERS K.J. RAGHAVENDRA, NO.25, RACECOURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BALRAM R RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 SERVED) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 (6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR FROM THE PANELS ARBITRATORS ASSOCIATED WITH BENGALURU ARBITRATION CENTRE, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU TO ARBITRATE THE SUBJECT DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENT ARISING FROM ANNEXURE A DATED 30.11.2021 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE 15 OF ANNEXURE A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioners filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for short) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondents as per clause 15 of the reconstitution of partnership deed dated 30.11.2021 vide Annexure-A. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6947 CMP No. 182 of 2025 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioners and respondent No.1 are the partners in respondent No.2 – partnership firm called as ‘Hotel Race View’, which was last reconstituted on 30.11.2021. In the firm, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 hold equal shares of 33.33% each, while petitioner No.2 holds 33.34% share. One of the entities run by the partnership firm is M/s Golden Metro Hotel operating at Seshadripuram, Bengaluru. The said hotel concern was under the primary management of day to day affairs by respondent No.1 and the operation was not satisfactory and lacked transparency, which led to several operational and financial concerns. The meeting was held between the partners to evolve a plan to address the concerns. In spite of several efforts, respondent No.1 failed to co-operate. 3. There is an arbitration clause in the reconstitution of partnership deed dated 30.11.2021. The petitioners invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6947 CMP No. 182 of 2025 arbitration notice dated 13.01.2025. Respondent No.1 replied to the legal notice on 13.02.2025, wherein the respondent stated that, any issues can be amicably resolved through a discussion, but did not agree for the appointment of an Arbitrator. Hence, this petition. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondents. There is an arbitration clause in the reconstitution of partnership deed and the petitioners invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act vide Annexure-B. He submits that, respondent No.1 has replied to the said arbitration notice vide Annexure-D, wherein the respondent has stated that, the matter can be settled amicably. However, the respondent did not come forward to settle the matter amicably. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6947 CMP No. 182 of 2025 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that, the respondent has replied to the arbitration notice stating that the dispute can be resolved amicably. He submits that, despite issuing a reply, the petitioners had approached this Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The point that arises for consideration is as follows: Whether the petitioners have made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of clause 15 of the reconstitution of partnership deed vide Annexure-A dated 30.11.2021 as per the provisions of the Act and Rules? 9. The undisputed facts are that, the petitioners and respondent No.1 are the partners of the partnership firm. The dispute arose between the petitioners and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6947 CMP No. 182 of 2025 respondent No.1 in furtherance of the reconstitution of partnership deed. The petitioners invoked arbitration clause as per clause 15 of the deed, which reads as follows: “15. In the case of dispute arising among the parties hereto regarding dissolution or winding up or any of the rights and liabilities of partners or an claim created or arising under this deed of partnership the same shall be referred to Arbitration and the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act 1996 shall apply to this class.” 10. From the perusal of clause 15 of the deed, it discloses that any dispute arising among the parties regarding the dissolution or winding up or any of the rights and liabilities of the partners can be resolved through arbitration. Admittedly, the petitioners, invoking the arbitration clause, issued arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act on 13.01.2025 vide Annexure-B. Respondent No.1 replied to the arbitration notice on 13.02.2025 vide Annexure-D, wherein respondent No.1 did not dispute regarding the existence of an arbitration clause and also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6947 CMP No. 182 of 2025 dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has taken up a contention in the reply that the matter can be resolved through an amicable settlement. The respondent, except issuing a reply, did not come forward to settle the dispute amicably. There exists an arbitration clause and also arbitrable dispute arose between the petitioners and respondents. The said dispute has to be resolved through arbitration. 11. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to arbitration. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative, and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The civil miscellaneous petition is allowed; ii. Sri. Choudapurkar Arun, Retired District Judge is nominated as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents as per the provisions of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6947 CMP No. 182 of 2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules; iii. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator, and the Director of the Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bengaluru; iv. The Registry is directed to return the original/certified copies of the documents produced by the petitioners, if any, after retaining the photocopies of the same; v. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29