Allowed

Kenstream Ventures LLP v. Wework India Management Private Limted

Karnataka HC30 Aug 2023CMP/439/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court found that prior email correspondence and a preliminary notice satisfied the condition of attempting negotiation before invoking arbitration. Consequently, the court appointed former Judge V. Jagannathan as the sole arbitrator to conduct proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation C

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Jagannathan as the sole arbitrator to conduct proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru.

Kenstream Ventures LLP Vs Wework India Management Private Limted — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:30926 CMP No. 439 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 439 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KENSTREAM VENTURES LLP HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.130/2 ULSOOR ROAD BANGALORE-560042 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR B PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

WEWORK INDIA MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMTED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, EMBASSY POINT 150 INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

¶12

ALSO AT WEWORK GALAXY NO.43, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025

¶13

ALSO AT 53 54 54/1 54/2 AND 55/3

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:30926 CMP No. 439 of 2022

¶16

CHURCH STREET, WARD NO.76 BANGALORE-560001

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. NISCHAL DEV, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 23.2 OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED DATED MARCH 02, 2020 (ANNEXURE-A).

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner and the respondent are parties to the registered Lease Deed dated 02.03.2020 and they have agreed to resolve their disputes, failing negotiations, by arbitration. The terms of the Lease Deed are not disputed. The petitioner has issued the Communication dated 13.12.2021 informing the respondent about his claim for a sum of Rs.5,80,12,039/- putting the respondent on notice that if this amount is not settled, the petitioner would be constrained to commence arbitration proceedings, and it is seen from the subsequent legal notice dated

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:30926 CMP No. 439 of 2022

¶25

07.02.2022 that this Communication dated

¶26

13.12.2021 is proceeded by a series of E-mail communications.

¶27

The petitioner, in causing the legal notice dated 07.02.2022 after emails, has invited the respondent's consent for the appointment of a retired District Judge as a sole Arbitrator, but the respondent has not issued any reply thereto. The respondent's objection that arbitration clause is invoked with the issuance of legal notice dated 07.02.2022 without efforts for negotiated settlement is belied by the E- mails referred to in the legal notice dated 07.02.2022 and the correspondence dated 13.12.2021, and this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be reasonably opined that the petitioner has invoked arbitration clause without efforts for negotiating settlement. Hence, leaving all questions open to be decided in the arbitral proceedings, the following:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:30926 CMP No. 439 of 2022

¶30

ORDER

¶31

[a] The petition is allowed.

¶32

[b] Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Jagannathan, a former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka 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 governing the Centre.

¶33

[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 the Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Jagannathan, a former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka,

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:30926 CMP No. 439 of 2022

¶35

Address: PRIDE ENCHANTA, No.003, Ground Floor, 4th Block, Opposite to BHEL Main Gate, Mysore Road, Bengaluru-560026 [[email protected]] as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Kenstream Ventures LLP v. Wework India Management Private Limted

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kenstream Ventures LLP v. Wework India Management Private Limted

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Creative Synergies Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ajay Meshappa Chikkanaganur

Sri Kullachanda U Ganapathy Vs Sri M Faisal

M/S Golden Kavz Wellness and Infrastructure Vs Sri Abdul Rehman Kumble

S Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Bagmane Developers Private Limited Vs Schneider Electric Private Limited

Kesari Roller Flour Mills Private Limited Vs Hangal Renewables Private Limited