Dismissed¶34

Smt. Sarojamma v. Aircel Ltd.

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2025CMP/665/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice Suraj Govindaraj; CMP No. 665 of 2022; Section 11(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of arbitrator; Arbitration Centre Karnataka panel; lease agreement dispute; Aircel Ltd.; GTL Infrastructure Ltd.; R2 deleted; R1 served 26.08.2022; petitioner permitted to withdraw; liberty to approach Civil Court for settlement proceedings; return of originals and certified copies; petition dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for initiating settlement proceedings; Registry directed to return the originals and certified copies produced. ¶34

Smt. Sarojamma Vs Aircel Ltd. — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46905 CMP No. 665 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 665 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O. V. RAMAPPA, AGD ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 1^ST CROSS, MPM LAYOUT, MALLATHALLI, NEAR AMBEDKAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVISHA M.G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AIRCEL LTD., NO.769, 5^TH FLOOR, SPENCERR PLAZA, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002, TAMILNADU STATE.

¶15

ALSO AT NO.66/5-25, WARD NO. 63, 3^RD FLOOR, HM VIBHA TOWERS, LASKUR HOSUR ROAD, ADOGODI, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:46905 CMP No. 665 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

G. T. L. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., NO.3, CANNOUGHT ROAD, OFF QUEENS ROAD, TASKER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 052,

¶20

ALSO AT NO.412, JANABHOMI CHAMBERS, 29, WLCHAND HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI - 400 710, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(R1 SERVED

¶23

VIDE ORDER DATED 26.08.2022, R2 IS DELETED)

¶24

THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE ABOVE CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR ON THE PANEL OF ARBITRATION CENTRE - KARNATAKA (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL), BENGALURU TO DECIDE THE DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS PURSUANT TO THE BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 20/01/2009 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT , IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46905 CMP No. 665 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to appoint an Arbitrator on the panel of Arbitration Centre – Karnataka (Domestic & International), Bangalore to decide the dispute that has arisen between the petitioner and the respondents pursuant to the breach of the Terms and Conditions of the Lease Agreement 20.01.2019 as per ANNEXURE-A, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶32

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for and is granted liberty to approach the Civil Court for initiating settlement proceedings.

¶33

Registry is directed to return the originals and all certified copies that have been produced, by following due process.

¶34

Reserving such liberty, petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

¶35

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶36

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT-SG

Smt. Sarojamma v. Aircel Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sarojamma v. Aircel Ltd.

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

M/S Durga Facility Management Vs Government Emarketplace

Sri H a Vinod Kumar Vs the Executive Engineer

B H G Constructions Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Sorting Hat Solutions Private Limited Vs Mr. Ravinder Kumar Chauhan

M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co., Ltd. Vs M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

M/S. Meyer Organics Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Scs Enterprises