Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 48498 (KAR)

SMT. K. ANITHA RAO v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

CMP/295/2023 · 2026-02-05

Ashok S Kinagi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6948 CMP No. 295 of 2023 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. 295 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SMT. K. ANITHA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O SRI K RAGHAVENDRA RAO PROPRIETOR, M/S H P AUTO SERVICE CENTRE, NO.14, 24TH CROSS DO 14, KASABA NIJAGAL VILLAGE, DABBASPET-562111 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBHASH SRINIVASA RANGACHAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6948 CMP No. 295 of 2023 NO.111, 1ST FLOOR, CHANDRALOK COMPLEX SAROJINI DEVI ROAD, NEAR PARADISE CIRCLE, SECUNDERABAD-560003 2. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE NO.77, P B NO.1610, OLD MADRAS ROAD, DOORAVANINAGAR, K R PURAM BENGALURU-560016 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER …RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ENTER UPON REFERENCE AND PASS AWARD IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER ON ONE SIDE AND THE RESPONDENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE. B) GRANT COSTS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ***** - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6948 CMP No. 295 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for short) for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition. 2. The petitioner, without issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act to the respondents, filed this petition. The petitioner did not comply with the requirements of Section 21 of the Act. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 3. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed reserving a liberty to the petitioner to issue a notice to the respondents under Section 21 of the Act, if so desired. 4. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA | CT:KHV | List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2