Sobroso the Premium Banquet and 2 Ors. vs Sudhir Bhujang Shetty

This Application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( “the Act” ), seeking appointment of an arbitrator in connection with disputes and differences that are said to have arisen between the parties under an agreement dated February 21, 2019 (“ Agreement ”). The arbitration agreement is contained in Clause 38 (found at Page 53 of the Application). In the interest of brevity, the arbitration agreement is not being extracted here. Suffice it to say that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶13

Digitally signed byASHWINI ASHWINIJANARDANVALLAKATI JANARDANVALLAKATIDate: 2025.07.19 16:38:17 +0530

¶14

Page 1 of 6 July 4, 2025

¶15

Ashwini Vallakati

¶16

32-CARAP-229-2024.doc

¶17

It is apparent from the record that the arbitration agreement was invoked by the Applicant on April 1, 2022. There is no reply filed to the said invocation.

¶18

It is seen from the record that in an affidavit in reply, the Respondent has taken the stance that since the agreement is terminated, the arbitration agreement contained therein also stands terminated. This is contrary to the well-known first principle that arbitration agreements survive the termination of the agreement containing them. Since disputes and differences exist between the parties under the agreement, no useful purpose would be served in standing this matter over any further. It is seen from the record that way back in December, the matter had been stood over as a last chance for the Respondent. In any case, considering the crystallised specific reply available on record and the scope of jurisdiction of this Court, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this Application pending any further.

¶19

The scope of review under Section 11 is explicitly set out in Section 11(6A) of the Act. It is now trite law, with particular regard to

¶20

Page 2 of 6 July 4, 2025

¶21

Ashwini Vallakati

¶22

32-CARAP-229-2024.doc

¶23

the decisions of a seven-judge bench in the Interplay Judgement¹ followed by multiple others, including SBI General² and Patel³ that the Section 11 Court ought not to venture beyond examining the existence of a validly existing arbitration agreement that has been formally executed. Even questions of existential substance is a matter that falls squarely in the domain of the arbitral tribunal, in view of Section 16 of the Act.

¶24

Being satisfied that an arbitration agreement is validly in existence, and that arbitration has been duly invoked, it is in the fitness of things to refer the disputes and differences between the parties in connection with the aforesaid agreement to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator.

¶25

In these circumstances, this Application is hereby finally disposedof , in terms of the following order:

¶26

A) Mr. Akshay Kolse-Patil, a learned advocate of this

¶27

Court is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between

¶28

1 In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreement under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 (2024) 6 SCC 1

¶29

2 SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine 1974

¶30

3 Ajay Madhusudan Patel Vs. Jyotindra S. Patel, 2024 SCC OnLine, 2597

Page 3 of 6

July 4, 2025

Ashwini Vallakati

32-CARAP-229-2024.doc

¶35

the parties arising out of and in connection with the

¶36

Agreement referred to above;

¶37

Office Address:-

¶38

14C, First Floor, Examiner Press Building,

¶39

Dalala Street, Mumbai 400 001

¶40

Email ID: [email protected]

¶41

B) A copy of this Order will be communicated to the Learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocates for the Applicant within a period of one week from the date of upload of this order. The Applicant shall provide the contact and communication particulars of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal along with a copy of this Order;

¶42

C) The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the Advocates for the Petitioner so as to enable them to file the same in the Registry of this Court. The Registry of this Court shall retain the said Statement

Page 4 of 6

July 4, 2025

Ashwini Vallakati

32-CARAP-229-2024.doc

¶47

on the file of this Application and a copy of the same shall be furnished by the Advocates for the Applicant to the Respondent;

¶48

D) The parties shall appear before the Learned Sole Arbitrator on such date and at such place as indicated, to obtain appropriate directions with regard to conduct of the arbitration including fixing a schedule for pleadings, examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc. At such meeting, the parties shall provide a valid and functional email address along with mobile and landline numbers of the respective Advocates of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal. Communications to such email addresses shall constitute valid service of correspondence in connection with the arbitration;

¶49

E) All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be borne by the parties equally in the first instance, and shall be subject to any final Award that may be passed by the Tribunal in relation to costs.

¶50

Page 5 of 6 July 4, 2025

¶51

Ashwini Vallakati

¶52

32-CARAP-229-2024.doc

¶53

Needless to say, nothing contained in this order is an expression of an opinion on merits of the matter or the relative strength of the parties. All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the arbitral tribunal appointed hereby.

¶54

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

¶55

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶56

Page 6 of 6

¶57

July 4, 2025

¶58

Ashwini Vallakati

Sobroso the Premium Banquet and 2 Ors. v. Sudhir Bhujang Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobroso the Premium Banquet and 2 Ors. v. Sudhir Bhujang Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Schindler India Private Limited vs Gupta Housing Private Limited

Saurashtra Chs Ltd. vs Sayla Realtors

Kamakshi Enterprises, a Registered Partnership Firm vs Shreenathji Developers Private Limited

Saryu Dhirajlal Mayani and Anr. Partners of Manoj and Co. vs Manoj and Co. and 4 Ors.

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs Samir Castings Private Limited

Tata Motors Finance Solution Ltd. vs Parbez Hamid