Louis Berger Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Wadia Techno-Engineering… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

Louis Berger Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Wadia Techno-Engineering… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as per the Contract Agreement dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure-C), to adjudicate the disputes said to have arisen between the petitioner and respondent no.1. +1 more

Court's answer

In the totality of circumstances the Court considered that the petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) must be rejected, and the petition stands rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded that the arbitration notices were addressed to the first respondent alone although the petition was filed against the second and third respondents as well.

Key takeaways

The Court recorded that the petitioner had not nominated an arbitrator under its Notice dated 25.05.2021.ratio¶29
None appeared for the petitioner and the proceedings showed the petitioner's continued absence.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — appointment of sole arbitrator — Civil Misc. Petition No. 553 of 2021, High Court of Karnataka (B M Shyam Prasad J), oral order dated 04.06.2025: Louis Berger Consulting Pvt Ltd, invoking notices dated 30.04.2021 (monetary claim) and 25.05.2021 (adjudication) resting on the Agreement dated 26.04.2017, sought appointment of a sole arbitrator to decide its disputes with Wadia Techno-Engineering Services Ltd (respondent 1). The notices were addressed to respondent 1 alone, yet the petition was filed also against Mangaluru Smart City Ltd (respondent 2) and Centre for Advance Computing (respondent 3); no arbitrator was nominated under the notice dated 25.05.2021. Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the work arose out of a consortium tender answered by the petitioner, respondents 1 and 3, that the tendered work was executed and respondent 1 received all monies under the inter se agreement, and that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. None appeared for the petitioner, whose absence was continuous. Holding that, in the totality of circumstances, the petition must be rejected, the Court rejected it. Counsel's submissions on consortium and want of privity were recorded as arguments, not adopted as this Court's holding.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18774 CMP No. 553 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 553 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

LOUIS BERGER CONSULTING PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT REGUS BUSINESS CENTRE, LEVEL 3, VASANT SQUARE MALL POCKET, V SECTOR B, NEW DELHI 110070.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHESHAGIRI., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND:

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

WADIA TECHNO-ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT NEVILLE HOUSE, J N HEREDIA ROAD, BALLARD PIER, MUMBAI 400001.

MANGALURU SMART CITY LTD THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18774 CMP No. 553 of 2021

HC-KAR

2^ND FLOOR CITY CORPORATION, M G ROAD, LALBHAG, MANGALURU 575003.

CENTRE FOR ADVANCE COMPUTING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CAMPUS OF UNIVERSITY OF PUNE

PUNE - 411 007.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO A. ALLOW THE PRESENT APPLICATION AND APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR AS PER CONTRACT AGREEMENT DATED 26/04/2017, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, AS THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO ACT AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, TO ADJUDICATE AND DECIDE UPON THE DISPUTES WHICH HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.1.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18774 CMP No. 553 of 2021

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, who has caused Notice dated 30.04.2021 raising a monetary claim, has also caused notice dated 25.05.2021 for adjudication of the claim relying upon the Agreement dated 26.04.2017. These Notices are addressed to the first respondent alone, but the petition is filed as against the second and third respondents as well. Further, the petitioner under the Notice dated 25.05.2021 has not nominated the Arbitrator.

Be these as it may, Sri Ajay J Nandalike, the learned counsel for the second respondent, supported by Sri M N Kumar, a learned Senior standing Counsel for the third respondent, submits [a] the second respondent has called for tenders and a Consortium comprising the petitioner, the first and third respondents have responded successfully [b] the tendered work is executed and the first respondent, in terms of the inter-se Agreement has received all the

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18774 CMP No. 553 of 2021

HC-KAR

monies, [c] even if there can be any dispute, it could only be between the petitioner and the first respondent and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the second, or the third respondent, to answer the petitioner9s claim. None appears for the petitioner, and it is seen from the proceedings that there is continued absence.

In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be rejected, and it stands rejected.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-