Square Yards Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Vs 315 Work Avenue Pune Spaces Pvt. Ltd.

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

C.M.P NO. 584 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SQUARE YARDS CONSULTING PVT LTD PRESENTLY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3B, RAJENDRA PARK, PUSA ROAD NEW DELHI-110 006, INDIA. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SUDEENA .A.A S/O APPAIH .A.A AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANKUR TRIPATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

315 WORK AVENUE PUNE SPACES PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2^ND AND 3^RD FOOR, NO.252 8^TH MAIN ROAD, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560 071.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. RAKSHITH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO EXERCISE THE POWERS UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND APPOINT OF

¶16

2

¶17

THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE ALL DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 18 OF THE DEED (ANNEXURE -A) DATED 25.03.2022.

¶18

THIS CMP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.02.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶20

C.A.V. ORDER

¶21

The captioned civil Misc. petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondent in the light of the arbitration clause contained in deed of license dated 25.3.2022.

¶22

2. Respondent is served with notice and has engaged the learned counsel.

¶23

The petitioner contends that the respondent

¶24

inducted it as a licensee and handed over possession of the premises pursuant to a duly executed Deed of License

¶25

3

¶26

dated 25.03.2022. However, after taking possession, the petitioner began experiencing multiple issues related to housekeeping, electrical fittings, air conditioning, furniture, and bathroom fittings. Despite sending several reminders to the respondent seeking resolution of these issues, no action was taken. Consequently, the petitioner issued a legal notice on 05.08.2024 invoking the arbitration clause. Due to lack of any response from the respondent, the present petition has been filed.

¶27

The respondent’s primary objection is that the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause prematurely, without adhering to the process outlined in Clause 18 of the Deed of License. The respondent argues that the petitioner should have first provided an opportunity for negotiation and dispute resolution before proceeding with arbitration.

¶28

4

¶29

However, upon careful examination of the documents annexed to the petition, this Court finds that the petitioner had sent multiple reminders to the respondent well before invoking arbitration. The legal notice at Annexure-B clearly outlines the issues faced by the petitioner and was issued only after several prior communications went unanswered. Notably, the respondent failed to issue any reply disputing the claims made in the legal notice. The judgment cited by the respondent in Mr. Gurinder P. Singh Dhall v. Ahneuser Bush Inbev India Limited [CMP.686/2022, DD.

¶30

16.09.2022] is distinguishable and does not apply to the present case. Unlike in that case, where parties had explicitly agreed to issue a written show-cause notice regarding disputes, no such requirement exists in the present agreement. Given the available material, it is evident that the petitioner made a genuine attempt to negotiate and resolve the dispute before invoking

¶31

5

¶32

arbitration. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the respondent’s objection.

¶33

6. After a thorough review of the petition,

¶34

annexures and supporting documents, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has met the procedural requirements outlined under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

¶35

7. In the light of the aforesaid clause of arbitration

¶36

and the contentions advanced by the petitioner the following order is passed:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The petition is allowed appointing Shri. Virupaxappa H. Sambrani, District Judge(Retired) as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru

¶39

6

¶40

according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

¶41

(ii) All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings.

¶42

(iii) The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and to Shri. Virupaxappa H. Sambrani, District Judge(Retired), as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012.

¶43

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶44

*alb/-.

Square Yards Consulting Pvt. Ltd., v. 315 Work Avenue Pune Spaces Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Square Yards Consulting Pvt. Ltd., v. 315 Work Avenue Pune Spaces Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thimmarayappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S S S Ruby Developers Vs Sri H N Chandrashekar

K v Narayanaswamy Vs Bank Officers and Officials House Building Co-Operating Society Ltd.

M/S M Venkata Rao Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Kumar Vs Nil

Shivaji S/O Megu Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.