Mr Santosh Sakhare Vs E Trans T4U Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mr Santosh Sakhare Vs E Trans T4U Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Nomination of Hon'ble Justice Sri N.N.Dharwadkar, learned District Judge (Rtd.), as Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in terms of clause 13 of the appointment letter dated 18.01.2019 vide Annexure-A under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules; the office directed to communicate the order to the learned sole Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner made out a ground to refer the arbitral dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of clause 13 of the Appointment Letter dated 18.01.2019 vide Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules?

Court's answer

Clause 13 of the appointment letter dated 18.01.2019 discloses that any dispute arising between the parties shall be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall be resolved through an arbitrator.

Ratio / Principle

An arbitral dispute admittedly arises between the parties to the petition and the same dispute must be resolved through arbitration in terms of clause 13 of the Appointment Letter vide Annexure-A.

Key takeaways

The petitioner has made out a ground to refer the arbitral dispute to the arbitrator; the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative.ratio¶54
Hon'ble Justice Sri N.N.Dharwadkar, learned District Judge (Rtd.), is nominated as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of clause 13 of the Appointment Letter dated 18.01.2019 vide Annexure-A, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NC: 2025:KHC:26732 | High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru | CMP No. 513 of 2024 (Ashok S. Kinagi, J.) | Decided 15 July 2025. Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the prayer clause cites Section 8) by Santosh Sakhare, former Human Resource Business Partner of E Trans T4u Pvt. Ltd., who was terminated on 27.03.2024, allegedly without any enquiry and in violation of the principles of natural justice. After legal notices beginning 17.04.2024, a further notice proposing arbitration, and the respondent's refusal to agree to arbitration, the petitioner invoked clause 13 of his appointment letter dated 18.01.2019 (Annexure-A) by arbitration notice dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure-H). Counsel for the respondent raised no objection, requesting that all contentions be kept open; the statement of objections was taken as not filed. The court held that an arbitral dispute admittedly existed between the parties and was referable in terms of clause 13, answered its point for consideration in the affirmative, allowed the petition, and nominated Hon'ble Justice Sri N.N.Dharwadkar, learned District Judge (Rtd.), as Arbitrator, directing the office to communicate the order to the arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru.

NC: 2025:KHC:26732 CMP No. 513 of 2024

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 513 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

MR. SANTOSH SAKHARE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O MUTAPPA SAKHARE, RESIDENT OF 11, SHIVALAYA, SAKETH LAYOUT, KITAGNUR, KR PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RANJITHKUMAR R.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

E TRANS T4U PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, MR. SOUMYA KANTI ACHARYA, 404, 405, HVS COURT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANT NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052, M: 9740352143.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA S, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO 1. APPOINT THE ARBITRATOR WITH DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE ILLEGAL ARBITRARY TERMINATION OF THE PETITIONER FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEXURE B CLAUSE 13 OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26732 CMP No. 513 of 2024

HC-KAR

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

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

ORAL ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act, 1996’ for brevity) and Rules, for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Claus 13 of the Appointment letter dated 18.01.2019 vide Annexure-A.

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

The petitioner joined the respondent – Company as Human Resource Business Partner on 03.12.2018, and the employment transition of the petitioner from Rane t4u Pvt. Ltd., to eTrans t4u Pvt. Ltd., on 18.01.2019. The petitioner was terminated from his employment by the respondent on 27.03.2024. The petitioner issued a legal notice dated

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26732 CMP No. 513 of 2024

HC-KAR

17.04.2024 to the respondent stating that the respondent

had wrongfully terminated the petitioner from his employment without holding any enquiry and was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent replied to the legal notice making baseless allegations. The petitioner issued a second legal notice refuting the respondent’s allegations, reiterating the wrongful termination and proposing arbitration. The respondent replied to the second legal notice. The petitioner, having fed up with the attitude of the respondent, invoked an arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice on 18.07.2024. The respondent replied to the arbitration notice and did not agree to the arbitration. Hence, this petition.

The respondent, despite granting sufficient opportunity, has not filed the statement of objections. Hence, the statement of objections is taken as not filed.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26732 CMP No. 513 of 2024

HC-KAR

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioner, and also the learned counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent, without any reason, terminated the petitioner from his employment and the termination order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that no enquiry was held by the respondent before terminating the petitioner from his employment. He submits that there is an arbitration clause, in clause 13 of the appointment letter dated 18.01.2019. He submits that the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice, proposing the name of the arbitrator, for which the respondent replied. He submits that there is an arbitration clause in the appointment letter. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits no objections to allow the petition and submits that all the contentions of the parties may be kept open.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26732 CMP No. 513 of 2024

HC-KAR

Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for consideration is as follows:

“Whether the petitioner made out a ground to refer the arbitral dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of clause 13 of the Appointment Letter dated 18.01.2019 vide Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules?”

There is no dispute that the petitioner was employed with the respondent as per the appointment letter dated 18.01.2019 vide Annexure-A. The petitioner was discharging his duty as a Human Resource Business Partner. The respondent terminated the employment of the petitioner vide termination order dated 27.03.2024. The petitioner issued two legal notices calling upon the respondent to recall the termination order on the ground that no enquiry was held by the respondent before

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26732 CMP No. 513 of 2024

HC-KAR

terminating the petitioner from his employment. The order of termination is in violation of principles of natural justice.

Clause 13 of the appointment letter reads as follows:

13. Arbitration

You agree that the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of India and all disputes under this Agreement shall be governed by the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The venue for arbitration will be Bangalore. The arbitration shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator appointed by the Company, and the award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon you.

From the bare reading of clause 13 of the Appointment Letter, which discloses that if any dispute arises between the parties, the agreement shall be governed by the provisions of the Arbitrations and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the dispute shall be resolved through an arbitrator. The petitioner issued a legal notice vide Annexure-H dated 18.07.2024, wherein the petitioner

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26732 CMP No. 513 of 2024

HC-KAR

has invoked an arbitration clause by issuing a notice. Admittedly, the arbitral dispute arises between the parties to the petition and the same dispute must be resolved through arbitration in terms of clause 13 of the Appointment Letter vide Annexure-A. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the arbitral dispute to the arbitrator. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

ii. Hon’ble Justice Sri N.N.Dharwadkar, learned District Judge (Rtd.), is nominated as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of clause 13 of the Appointment Letter dated 18.01.2019 vide Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules.

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26732 CMP No. 513 of 2024

HC-KAR

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

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

SSB CT: BHK