Mr. K. S. Sunil Gupta Vs Radome Technologies and Services Private Limited

MR. K. S. SUNIL GUPTA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SON OF SRI. SRINIVASA GUPTA, S-711, SOUTH BLOCK, MANIPAL CENTER, DICKINSON ROAD, OFF. M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. BALA NIKIT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

RADOME TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 207, 1ST FLOOR, JAYA NIVAS, PADUKA MANDIRA ROAD, NEAR BRIGADE 7 GARDENS, BHBCS, BENGALURU - 560 061, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. NAGENDRA PRASAD KUMBLE.

¶15

MR. NAGENDRA PRASAD KUMBLE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SON OF SRI. MANJUNATH KUMBLE RAMASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO. 1178,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41954 CMP No. 291 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

PRATHAMA, 30TH MAIN ROAD, POORNA PRAJNA LAYOUT,

¶19

UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶20

MR. SUMUKHA C KUMBLE AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SON OF SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR KUMBLE, RESIDING AT NO. 207, BRUNDHAVAN RESIDENCY, GOVARDHAN GARDEN, J.C. INDUSTRIAL AREA, YELACHANAHALLI POST, J. P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶21

MRS. AMRUTHA CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR KUMBLE, RESIDING AT NO. 207, BRUNDHAVAN RESIDENCY, GOVARDHAN GARDEN, J.C. INDUSTRIAL AREA, YELACHANAHALLI POST, J. P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶22

MRS. S. V. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. MANJUNATH K. R., RESIDING AT NO. 1120, PRATHAMA 30TH MAIN, POORNAPRAGNA LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. SAYANTANI RAKSHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND ALSO R3 TO R5)

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41954 CMP No. 291 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT MR. V.V. ANGADI, FORMER PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR AND THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL), KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU OF THE CLAUSE 21 OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIPTION AND SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT DATED 09/06/2022 AT ANNEXURE A.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:

¶32

"Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint Mr. V. V. Angadi, Former Principal District Judge as the Sole Arbitrator and the matter be referred to the Arbitration & Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru of the Clause 21 of the Share Subscription and Shareholders' Agreement dated 09/06/2022 at Annexure A."

¶33

The petitioner and the respondents had entered into

¶34

a Shared Subscription and Shareholders' Agreement

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:41954 CMP No. 291 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

on 09.06.2022, which is governed by an arbitration

¶39

clause in terms of clause 21.2, which is reproduced hereunder:

¶40

21.2 Arbitration

¶41

(a) If any disputes, controversies or claims arise between the parties out of, or in connection with, or under this Agreement, including in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement (a Dispute), a Party shall provide written notice (Dispute Notice) to the other Party that such dispute has arisen, and thereafter the parties shall endeavour to settle such Dispute(s) amicably within 10 (ten) days of the service of the Dispute Notice."

¶42

There being a certain dispute between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and issued a notice on 24.04.2024, nominating its arbitrator. The said notice having been served on the respondents, the respondents replied on 04.06.2024, denying the contents of the notice. The respondents replied on 04.06.2024 stating that the notice had been issued in contravention of the arbitration clause. Hence, the petitioner issued one more notice on 13.06.2024 stating that since the dispute had remained unresolved, the petitioner nominated its

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:41954 CMP No. 291 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

nominee. Despite service of notice, the respondents not having accepted the nomination or nominated its nominator, the petitioner had approached this Court.

¶47

When the matter was taken up for arguments on 17.10.2025 both the counsel sought some time to make their submissions as to whether the panel of three arbitrators would have to be appointed or a sole arbitrator could be appointed.

¶48

Today, both the counsels submit that a sole arbitrator could be appointed to arbitrate the dispute between the parties by this Court, leaving all contentions open to be decided by the arbitrator.

¶49

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) CMP is allowed .

¶52

i) Hon'ble Justice Sri. Sreenivas Harish Kumar, a former judge of this Court, is appointed as a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:41954 CMP No. 291 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

parties under the aegis of the Arbitration Centre attached to this Court.

¶57

ii) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre for doing the needful.

¶58

ii) Since the order is passed in the presence of both the counsel, they shall appear before the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre without requirement of any notice on 03.11.2025 at 2.30 p.m.

¶59

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶60

GJM

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Mr. K. S. Sunil Gupta v. Radome Technologies and Services Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. K. S. Sunil Gupta v. Radome Technologies and Services Private Limited

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

Sri Sai Sujith Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitesh Residency Hotels Private Limited Vs Reserve Bank of India

Raghu Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Shree Vaikuntam Life Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Latha Suresh Bhandary

Sri Tammesh Gowda H C Vs the State of Karnataka

Agua Wireless Systems Private Limited Vs Ashirvad Pipes Private Limited