Shri G Prakash Vs M/S Bert Labs Private Limited

SHRI G PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR MAIYA, R/AT NO. 35, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, 3^RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040

¶11

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C., DVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

M/S BERT LABS PRIVATE LIMITED OFFICE AT NO. C1, 906, L AND T SOUTH CITY BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 076. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF GROWTH OFFICER MRS. BHAVANA MITTAL MOB 9810294708

¶15

ALSO AT:

¶16

M/S BERT LABS PRIVATE LIMITED OFFICE AT NO. 613/A, 2^ND FLOOR, PID NO. 57-50-613A, 15^TH CROSS, 33^RD MAIN, 100 FEET ROAD, J.P. NAGAR 1^ST PHASE, BENGALURU - 560078.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:24205 CMP No. 242 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF GROWTH OFFICER MRS. BHAVANA MITTAL MOB 9810294708

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SMT/MISS. ANKITA PAUL, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL COMPRISING OF SOLE ARBITRATOR AS PER THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT THAT IS LEASE DEED DATED 16.05.2022 AS PER CLAUSE 7 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND AS DEEMED FIT AND NECESSARY UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IN ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner 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 in terms of clause 7 of the lease deed dated 16.05.2022 vide Annexure-A.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:24205 CMP No. 242 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this

¶32

petition are as follows:

¶33

The petitioner and the respondent had entered into a lease deed on commercial terms for office space in respect of the schedule premises on 16.05.2022 for 3 years. The said lease was terminated by the petitioner by issuing a legal notice dated 14.02.2025 seeking for vacant possession, arrears of monthly rent and other charges. The respondent replied baselessly and evasively. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement issuing a arbitration notice dated 06.03.2025 to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate all the disputes and differences arose between the parties, but the same have not been replied by the respondent even after the expiry of the statutory period. Hence, this petition.

¶34

Heard the arguments of Sri. Raghavendra C.,

¶35

the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt/Miss. Ankita Paul, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:24205 CMP No. 242 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶40

the petitioner and the respondents entered into a lease

¶41

deed on 16.05.2022 and the petitioner terminated the lease on 14.02.2025. The dispute arose between the parties to the petition. He submits that the petitioner has invoked an arbitration clause by issuing a notice vide Annexure-D dated 06.03.2025. He submits that the respondent has not replied to the legal notice. Hence, a cause of action arose for the petitioner to file a petition. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶42

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶43

submits no objection to allow the petition and nominate any retired District Judge as an arbitrator.

¶44

Perused the records and considered the

¶45

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶46

The point that arises for consideration is as follows:

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:24205 CMP No. 242 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

“Whether the petitioner has made out a

¶51

ground to refer the arbitral dispute to the arbitrator in terms of clause 7 of the lease deed dated 16.05.2022 vide Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules?

¶52

There is no dispute regarding the execution of the lease deed dated 16.05.2022 between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner has terminated the lease by issuing a notice dated 14.02.2025 vide AnnexureB and called upon the respondent to vacate the schedule premise and pay the damages. The respondent replied to the legal notice dated 14.02.2025 on the untenable grounds. The respondent denied the contents of the legal notice. Hence, the petitioner issued a notice as per Section

¶53

21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 06.03.2025, invoking the arbitration clause. There is an

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:24205 CMP No. 242 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

arbitration clause lease deed dated 16.05.2022, which

¶58

reads as follows:

¶59

7. Dispute resolution:

¶60

a) Any controversy or claim or dispute or difference arising out of or relating to the lease of the leased premises under this Lease Deed, or relating to the terms and conditions of this lease deed or an interpretation thereof or any breach or alleged breach thereof, shall be referred to, and finally settled in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by a sole Arbitrator to be jointly appointed by the Lessors and the Lessee. The arbitration proceedings shall be held in Bengaluru.

¶61

b) The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties, subject to the provisions, of clause 9.1. above, the courts in Bengaluru shall alone have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Lease Deed.

¶62

The dispute arose between the parties to the petition in terms of the lease deed and the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice dated 06.03.2025 vide Annexure-D proposing the name of the arbitrator. The respondent did not reply to the arbitration notice. As there is an arbitration clause in the lease deed,

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24205 CMP No. 242 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

the dispute arose between the parties to the petition and

¶66

the arbitral dispute must be resolved through arbitration. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative.

¶67

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

¶70

ii. Sri. Rajashekar Venkanagouda Patil, learned District Judge (Retired), is nominated as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of clause 7 of the lease deed dated 16.05.2022, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Rules.

¶71