M/S Westbury Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr K Srinivas

M/S WESTBURY HOSPITALITY PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, 1202B, ANTRIKSH BHAVAN, 22 K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND DIRECTOR, MR. ABHISHEK LUTHRA

¶12

(BY SRI. ROHAN KOTHARI.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

MR K SRINIVAS S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.30, 2ND CROSS, IYYAPPA GARDEN, ADUGODI, BENGALURU- 560030

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. ROSHAN GEORGE JACOB.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:24503 CMP No. 25 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996., PRAYING TO APPOINT HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K.N. KESHAVA NARAYANA (RETD.) AS SOLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 12.2 OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 09.06.2023 ANNEXURE A FOR ADJUDICATING/RESOLVING THE CLAIMS, DISPUTES, AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1996' for short) for the appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 12.2 of the Agreement of Sale dated 09.06.2023 vide Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Rules, 1996.

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:24503 CMP No. 25 of 2025

¶27

3 -

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶30

The respondent has agreed to sell the lands in question to the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000/(Rupees Three Crores Only).

¶31

Accordingly, out of which, respondent has received a sum of Rs.1,45,45,455/- (Rupees One Crores Forty Five Lakhs Forty Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Five Only) from the petitioner as a part payment of the total consideration amount on 09.06.2023. The respondent failed to comply with the terms of the agreement for sale or take any steps thereto; therefore, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause by issuing an arbitration notice dated 07.12.2023. Upon realising that respondent has no intention to complete the sale transaction regarding the schedule property, the petitioner issued another arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act, 1996, on 06.06.2024. The respondent sought an extension of time for completing the sale transaction by stating frivolous reasons vide

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:24503 CMP No. 25 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

communication dated 18.06.2024. The petitioner has no other alternative remedy, except to invoke the arbitration clause 12.2; it issued a final notice under Section 21 of the Act on 19.11.2024. the respondent replied via e-mail dated 24.12.2024 and sought an extension of time to issue a detailed response to the notice invoking the Arbitration Clause. The respondent issued an untenable reply on 10.01.2025 to the notice dated 19.11.2024. The respondent did not come forward to resolve the dispute that arose between the parties to the petition. Hence, this petition.

¶36

The respondent has filed a statement of

¶37

objections. The respondent has raised several grounds in the statement of objections. However, the respondent have no objection to nominate the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition.

¶38

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the

¶39

petitioner and the respondent.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24503 CMP No. 25 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶43

the sale agreement came to be executed between the parties to the petition vide Annexure -A. The respondent did not perform their part of the contract. There is an Arbitration Clause in the sale agreement. The petitioner, by invoking the Arbitration Clause, issued several notices under Section 21 of the Act, 1996. However, the respondent failed to perform their part of the contract. The petitioner again issued a final arbitration notice under

¶44

Section 21 of the Act of 1996 on 19.11.2024 vide Annexure-F. The respondent, though replied, but did not come forward to nominate the Arbitrator. Hence, he submits that there is an arbitration clause in the sale agreement and the arbitral dispute arose between the parties to the petition. Hence, submits that the arbitral dispute must be resolved through the Arbitration. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24503 CMP No. 25 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent

¶48

submits that the petition may be allowed and any former High Court Judge may be appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the Arbitral dispute between the parties to the petition. Accordingly, prays to dispose of the petition.

¶49

Perused the records and considered the

¶50

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶51

The point, that arises for consideration, is as

¶52

follows:

¶53

“Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of Clause 12.2 of the Agreement of sale dated 09.06.2023 as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Rules?”

¶54

There is no dispute regarding the execution of

¶55

the sale agreement between the petitioner and the respondent dated 09.06.2023. The respondent agreed to sell the lands in question to the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000/-. The respondent has received Rs.1,45,45,455/- as a part payment from the

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:24503 CMP No. 25 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

petitioner. The respondent did not perform their part of the contract. There is an arbitration clause in the sale

¶60

agreement dated 09.06.2023, which reads as follows:

¶61

'12.2 In the case of failure by the Parties to resolve the dispute in the manner set out above within 30 days from the date when the dispute arose, the dispute shall be referred to a sole arbitrator mutually appointed by both parties. The place of the arbitration shall be at Bengaluru. The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended up to date by which the Parties in dispute agree to be so bound and shall be conducted in the English language.'

¶62

From the perusal of the Arbitration Clause, it is

¶63

evident that if any dispute arises amongst the parties, the dispute shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator mutually appointed by the parties. The petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act, 1996 on 07.12.2023. After receiving the Arbitration notice, the respondent did not come forward to complete the sale transaction regarding the schedule property. The petitioner again issued an arbitration notice on 06.06.2024. Thereafter the petitioner issued an

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24503 CMP No. 25 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Arbitration notice on 06.06.2024. Thereafter the petitioner issued a final Arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act on 19.11.2024. The respondent via e-mail dated 24.12.2024 sought a time to issue a detailed response to the notice invoking arbitration. The respondent issued untenable reply on 10.01.2025, and did not come forward to complete the transaction. Admittedly, there is an Arbitration Clause in the sale agreement and a dispute must be resolved through an Arbitration.

¶67

Learned counsel for the respondent has filed a statement of objections. But, submits no objection to nominate any Former Judge of High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator.

¶68

In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in affirmative. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:24503 CMP No. 25 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

¶74

ii. Hon'ble Justice Sri. Vishwanath Shetty, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka is nominated as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 12.2 of the Sale Agreement dated 09.06.2023 vide Annexure–A, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and the Rules.

¶75

iii. The Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru.

¶76

iv. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending I.A.s, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of.

¶77

The office is directed to return the original documents

¶78

to the petitioner, if any, after retaining a photocopy of the same.

¶79

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶80

RJ/BVK

M/S Westbury Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr K Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Westbury Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr K Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biligiri Rangaiah N.R. Vs Smt. Jayamma

Sri Venkatesh Vs Sri Narasimharaju

Sri M L Gopal Setty Since Dead by Lrs Vs City Municipal Council

Sri Nanjappa Vs Smt. Hanumakka

Mr Mg Poornachandrathejaswi Vs Mr Shreyas M Patel

Sri M Krishna Vs Colife Advisory Private Limited