Mrs. Veda Pradha Vs M/S Jabm Onesource Private Limited

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:981 CMP No. 453 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.453 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS.VEDA PRADHA W/O SHRI RAVI P L AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT SAMBRAMA APARTMENT NO.1676/A, 14^TH MAIN ROAD 3^RD STAGE 4^TH BLOCK PRAKASH NAGAR RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560021 …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA

¶12

M/S JABM ONESOURCE PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.254/185/26, 2^ND MAIN "BASWER SANNIDHI", ACHI ASHIRVAD-2 NEELADRI LAYOUT, DODATHOGURU KARNATAKA - 560 100. ALSO AT 2^ND MAIN ROAD, NILA INVESTMENT LAYOUT BETTADASANAPURA, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE I BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 100

¶13

MR.SUNIL MORE SHIVAJI RAO DIRECTOR

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:981 CMP No. 453 of 2023

¶16

M/S.JABM ONESOURCE PRIVATE LIMITED NO.254/185/26, 2^ND MAIN "BASWER SANNIDHI", ACHI ASHIRVAD-2 NEELADRI LAYOUT DODDATHOGURU ROAD BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560 100

¶17

SMT.MEGHANA T.M. D/O K.T.MAYEGOWDA MAJOR, R/AT THUBINAKERE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN KARNATAKA - 573124

¶18

ALSO AT FLAT NO.203, 'SILICON TREE' APARTMENT NO.21-22, 2^ND MAIN ROAD ADITYA KALYANA MANTAPA, 1^ST BLOCK AECS LAYOUT, SINGASANDRA BENGALURU - 560068.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.N.SURENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; NOTICE TO R.1 AND R.2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O/D 20.12.2024)

¶21

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 READ WITH CLAUSE 2 OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME, 1996, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO APPOINT ANY LEARNED RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE OR ANY HIGH COURT JUDGE, FOUND SUITABLE, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS AS AGREED BY THEM IN THE SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED 12.03.2020 AS PER

¶22

3 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:981 CMP No. 453 of 2023

¶24

CLAUSE/PARA NO.22 AT ANNEXURE-B AND GRANT SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST, PROPER AND NECESSARY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Sections 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking to appoint a sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause No.22 of the Service Agreement dated 12.03.2020 to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondents.

¶29

2. The petitioner and her husband, owners of the schedule property, entered into a service agreement on 12.03.2020 with respondent Nos.1 and 2, renting the property for a monthly rent of Rs.27,500. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 sub-leased the property to respondent No.3 but stopped paying rent from February 2022.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:981 CMP No. 453 of 2023

¶32

The petitioner issued a legal notice on 22.02.2023 to all respondents, which was unclaimed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 but delivered to respondent No.3. On 02.05.2023, the petitioner issued another legal notice invoking the arbitration clause and proposed a sole arbitrator.

¶33

3. After issuance of notice, the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not chosen to contest this petition. Respondent No.3, who is the tenant, is represented by the learned Counsel.

¶34

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶35

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the prayer in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, arguing that respondent No.3 is not a party to the Service Agreement dated 12.03.2020 and, therefore, cannot be subjected to the arbitration clause contained therein. He contended

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:981 CMP No. 453 of 2023

¶38

that respondent No.3’s role as a sub-tenant does not bind her to the arbitration mechanism under the agreement.

¶39

6. The records show that the petitioner issued a

¶40

legal notice on 22.02.2023 based on the Service Agreement dated 12.03.2020. When no response was received, a second legal notice dated 02.05.2023 was issued, demanding arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3,90,685/- and indicating potential termination of the agreement. The Service Agreement includes a clause referring disputes to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’). Following the lack of response from respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of ‘the Act’ on 02.05.2023, proposing Shri.Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhatt, Retired District and Sessions Judge, as the Sole Arbitrator. Despite this, respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not reply, prompting the present petition to invoke arbitration.

¶41

7. The Service Agreement acknowledges respondent Nos.1 and 2 as parties and refers to respondent No.3 as a

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:981 CMP No. 453 of 2023

¶44

sub-tenant. Consequently, respondent No.3’s contention of not being bound by the arbitration clause is untenable, as her role as a sub-tenant links her obligations to the agreement’s terms, including arbitration. This Court holds that respondent No.3 may raise her objections before the Arbitrator, who will decide the issues. Upon reviewing the documents and annexures, the Court is satisfied that the petitioner has complied with Section 11(4) of ‘the Act’. Therefore, the request to refer the matter to arbitration is justified and allowed.

¶45

8. In the light of the above said clause, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, appointing Sri.S.R.Somashekhara, retired District and Sessions Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondents in terms of the Clause No.22 of the Service Agreement dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure-B) to the petition.

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:981 CMP No. 453 of 2023

¶50

(ii) All contentions are kept open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings.

¶51

(iii) The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and Sri.S.R.Somashekhara, retired District and Sessions Judge, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012.

¶52

SD/-

¶53

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶54

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Mrs. Veda Pradha v. M/S Jabm Onesource Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Veda Pradha v. M/S Jabm Onesource 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

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K B Nagarajaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Microland Limited Vs K M Lakshmaiah Reddy

Basappa S Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Murthy H G Vs State of Karnataka