- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5084 CMP No. 344 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 344 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI. VIJAY RAMANAN S/O LATE SRI. M. KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO. 104, NETHRVATHI BUILDING, TAPMI, MANIPAL 576104 KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTHOSH NARAYAN S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S FORTIGO NETWORK LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO 17, AGIES BUILDING, 1ST A CORSS, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560095. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5084 CMP No. 344 of 2023 2. MR. ANJANI MANDAL FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M/S FORTIGO NETWORK LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 17, AGIES BUILDING, 1ST A CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHEEMAIAH.K.S., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 R/W RULE 2 OF SCHEME FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, PRAYING TO (A) APPOINT SRI.G.VIKRAM, ADVOCATE NO.10/1, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, MOUNT JOY EXTENSION, HANUMANTHANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 019 AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR IN THE PRESENT MATTER OR ANY OTHER SOLE ARBITRATOR AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AS PER CLAUSE 13 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 02.11.2025 IN TERMS OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-A TO THIS PETITION. (B) GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF/RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5084 CMP No. 344 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Zonal Head in respondent No.1 - Company on 02.11.2015. On 02.12.2019, respondent Nos.1 and 2 unilaterally changed the terms of appointment of the petitioner and appointed the petitioner as a Consultant, though there was no change in the work which was rendered. On 15.04.2023, the petitioner was illegally terminated from service and the legal dues of the petitioner was also not paid. 4. The petitioner sent a notice dated 10.05.2023 to the respondents and sought for payment of ₹68,72,845/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5084 CMP No. 344 of 2023 from the respondents. On 12.06.2023, the respondents replied to the notice and denied the claims of the petitioner. The petitioner issued an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, proposing for appointment of an arbitrator on 30.06.2023. The respondents have neither replied to the same nor have provided a consent for the appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arbitral dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner invoked arbitration clause by issuing a notice. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits no objection to allow the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5084 CMP No. 344 of 2023 8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Zonal Head in respondent No.1 Company and respondent Nos.1 and 2 unilaterally changed the terms of appointment of the petitioner and appointed the petitioner as a Consultant. The respondents have terminated the petitioner from service. The respondents are liable to pay ₹68,72,845/-. There is an arbitration clause viz. Clause (22) in the Appointment Letter dated 02.11.2015, and clause 13.2 in the Consultancy Agreement dated 02.12.2019 which read as follows: “22. Arbitration: In case of any difference, dispute, controversy or claim ("Dispute”) which may arise between the Parties out of or in relation to or in connection with, or the breach, termination, effect, validity, interpretation or application of this appointment or as to their rights, duties or liabilities hereunder, the parties shall refer the dispute to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the company and the decision of such sole arbitrator shall be binding upon both parties hereto. The venue of the arbitration shall be at Bangalore. The Company may also, at its discretion initiate proceedings against - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5084 CMP No. 344 of 2023 you in a Court of competent jurisdiction.” x x x “13. 0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 13.1 Choice of Law: This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India. 13.2 Disputes: Any dispute that arise between the parties with respect to the performance of Services under this Agreement and not settled amicably between the parties, shall be submitted to arbitration by the laws of India, to be determined and resolved by said Laws under its rules and procedures in effect at the time of submission and the parties hereby agree to share equally In the costs of said arbitration. 13.3 Courts: In the event of any dispute or difference arising out of this agreement or to the interpretation hereof, it is specifically agreed to between the parties hereto that Courts in Bangalore alone shall have jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.” 9. From the perusal of Clause (22) of the appointment letter and Clause 13.2 of consultancy agreement it discloses that if any difference, dispute arises between the parties out of or in relation to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5084 CMP No. 344 of 2023 appointment, or performance of service, the parties shall refer the dispute to the sole arbitrator. 10. Admittedly, there exists an arbitration clause and the arbitral dispute arose between the parties to the petition and the said dispute has to be resolved through an arbitration. 11. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the respondents have no objection to nominate any retired District Judge as an arbitrator, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (I) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (II) Sri.M.M.Pathan, learned retired District Judge, is nominated as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute(s) between the petitioner and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5084 CMP No. 344 of 2023 respondent in terms of Clause (22) of the Appointment Letter, as per the provisions of 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 Centre, Bangalore. (IV) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. (V) The Registry is directed to return the original and/or certified copies, if produced, to the respective parties who have produced it/them by following due procedure. (VI) Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21