M/S. Sportz Village Foundation Vs Pearls Academy

M/S. SPORTZ VILLAGE FOUNDATION SPORTZ VILLAGE, NO.36/2, GROUND FLOOR, SOMASUNDARAPALYA, NEAR MAHAVEER SEASON APARTMENT, HSR LAYOUT, 2ND SECTOR, BANGALORE - 560 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS FINANCE MANAGER MR. SRIKANTH H.R.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.K..,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

PEARLS ACADEMY GUT NO.81, HARSUL SAWANGI, AURANGABAD - 431007 REPRESENTED BY ITS SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT HEAD, MR. MUHAMMED MUNIR UZ ZAMA DESMUKH [email protected].

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. SHAIK ISMAIL ZABIULLA.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SECTION 11 (5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO (I) CONSTITUTE AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BY APPOINTING SUITABLE PERSON AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE DIFFERENCES, CLAIMS THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:22028 CMP No. 361 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SAID AGREEMENT DATED 23/12/2021 AS PER CLAUSE 9 OF ANNEXURE -A.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section

¶26

11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act, 1996’ for brevity) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 9 of the agreement dated 23.12.2021 vide Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Rules.

¶27

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

¶28

The petitioner is India’s leading integrated School Sports/Physical Education Company managing the school sports and physical education services from past several years. The respondent approached the petitioner for availing the services provided by the petitioner and

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:22028 CMP No. 361 of 2023

¶30

3 -

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

entered into an agreement dated 23.12.2023 at Bengaluru. The petitioner has provided services to the respondent as per Clause 2 of the agreement and raised several invoices on different dates. The respondent after availing the services of the petitioner has not made any payment for services rendered by them. The petitioner left with no other choice, issued a legal notice dated 19.05.2023 demanding the respondent to make a payment. However, the respondent neither replied to the notice nor made the payment. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked an arbitration clause 9 of the agreement by issuing notice as per Annexure-D dated 07.077.2023 proposing the name of an arbitrator. The respondent replied to the arbitration notice vide Annexure-E dated 29.08.2023. The respondent did not consented to the name suggested by the petitioner and the respondent has suggested the name of the arbitrator for which the petitioner did not consented. Hence, this petition.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:22028 CMP No. 361 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶37

petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶39

the petitioner and the respondent have entered into an agreement dated 23.12.2023. The petitioner provided the service to the respondent as per Clause 2 of the agreement and raised several invoices on different dates, but the respondent did not making payment. He submits that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement and the petitioner invoked an arbitration clause. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to allow the petition and submit that Sr. R.H.Raddi learned Retired District Judge may be nominated as an arbitrator.

¶41

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:22028 CMP No. 361 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The point, that arises for consideration is as

¶46

follows:

¶47

“Whether the petitioner made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of clause 9 of the Agreement dated 23.12.2023 vide Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules?”

¶48

There is no dispute that the petitioner and respondent have entered into an agreement dated 23.12.2023 for providing services to the respondent in terms of clause 2 of the agreement. Pursuant to the execution of the agreement, the petitioner has provided a services to the respondent and raised the invoices on different dates. The respondent did not pay the outstanding dues. The petitioner issued legal notice demanding to pay the outstanding dues. The respondent neither replied to the legal notice nor paid the outstanding dues. The petitioner invoked an arbitration clause as per

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:22028 CMP No. 361 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

clause 9 of the agreement dated 23.12.2023, which reads

¶53

as under:

¶54

“ 9. Arbitration : In case of any dispute or difference shall arise between the company and the customer on any matter within the scope of the agreement, such dispute or differences shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Company at the time of the reference of the disputes to arbitration. Award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties. The procedure laid down in Indian Arbitration Act of 1996 and the rules made there under from time to time shall apply in the matter of the reference. Only courts at Bangalore shall have jurisdiction to entertain a claim or for enforcement of the award.”

¶55

From the perusal of the arbitration clause, any dispute or difference shall be resolved through arbitration. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause and the petitioner has invoked an arbitration clause by issuing notice under Section 21 of the Act, 1996 dated 19.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner issued an arbitration notice on 07.07.2023. Though the petitioner has proposed the name of an arbitrator, wherein the respondent did not agree with the name proposed by the

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22028 CMP No. 361 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

petitioner and the respondent in the reply has proposed the name of another arbitrator as the petitioner has not consented to the same. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause and the dispute has arisen between the parties to the petition and the same has to be resolved through the arbitrator. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out grounds to refer the dispute to the arbitrator in terms of Clause 9 of the agreement dated 23.12.2021.

¶59

In view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative.

¶60

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

¶63

ii. Hon’ble Justice Sri R.H.Raddi, Retired District Judge, is nominated as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of clause 9 of the agreement dated 23.12.2021 as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules.

¶64