Dismissed¶38

Shri v. Srinivas Redy v the Union of India

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2025WP/37832/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition where arbitration clause exists in tender documents; termination of letter of intent for linen washing contract (South Western Railway, Bangalore Division); dismissal with liberty to pursue arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; termination notice 06.12.2025 No. B/M.271/Cont/Linen/Washing/SBC; Karnataka High Court 2025; Justice Suraj Govindaraj; WP 37832 of 2025 (GM-TEN).

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to initiate proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. ¶38

Shri v Srinivas Redy Vs the Union of India — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; petition dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to initiate proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the tender documents for the subject contract work contain an arbitration clause, and if so, whether the present writ petition is maintainable in the face of that arbitration clause. +1 more

¶37-38

Court's answer

Since the tender documents contain an arbitration clause, the petitioner must initiate such proceedings as are permissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the present writ petition in the face of the existence of the arbitration clause is not maintainable.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

I.A.No.1/25 is allowed and the production of certified copy of Annexure-A is dispensed with.

¶26-27

Key takeaways

The petition stands dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to initiate arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-TEN) No. 37832 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Suraj Govindaraj J.), decided 15.12.2025: The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Leotech Process, challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India a termination notice dated 06.12.2025 (No. B/M.271/Cont/Linen/Washing/SBC, Annexure-A) issued by the Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, South Western Railway, terminating the letter of intent issued in his favour, and also sought quashing of any fresh notice inviting tender. On enquiry, the petitioner's counsel acknowledged that the tender documents contain an arbitration clause. Holding that in the face of an existing arbitration clause the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner must pursue remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court dismissed the petition, reserving the petitioner's liberty to initiate arbitration proceedings. I.A.No.1/25 was allowed and production of the certified copy of Annexure-A was dispensed with.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53226 WP No. 37832 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 37832 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI V SRINIVAS REDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF M/S LEOTECH PROCESS PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM OFFICE AT NO.10-26 RAMALAYAM STREET, ENIKEPADU VIJAYAWADA - 520008

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.S. VASU DEVA NAIDU S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, RAIL SOUDHA, GADAG ROAD HUBBALLI- 560020

¶16

THE SR. DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER, BANGALORE DIVISION, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, BENGALURU-560023

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. A. CHANDRACHOOD., CGC)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED TERMINATION NOTICE DATED 06.12.2025, BEARING NO.B/M.271/CONT/LINEN/

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53226 WP No. 37832 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

WASHING/SBC, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

I.A.No.1/25 is allowed. The production of certified

¶27

copy of Annexure-A is dispensed with.

¶28

Sri.A.Chandrachood, counsel accepts notice for respondents no.1 and 2.

¶29

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

¶30

a. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned termination notice dated 06.12.2025, bearing No. B/M.271/Cont/Linen/Washing/SBC, issued by the 2^nd respondent as per Annexure-A.

¶31

b. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned notice inviting tender if any in respect of the subject contract work in the same form or any other form by the respondents.

¶32

c. To grant such other order or further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper including the costs of these proceedings to the petitioners.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:53226 WP No. 37832 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Essentially what is being sought for is for passing a termination notice, terminating the letter of intent which has been issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

On enquiry as to whether the tender documents had

¶38

an arbitration clause, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that there is an arbitration clause present in the said tender notification. If that be so, it would be for the petitioner to initiate such proceedings as are permissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the present writ petition in the face of existence of arbitration clause is not maintainable. Reserving such liberty, petition stands dismissed.

¶39

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶40

PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Shri v. Srinivas Redy v the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri v. Srinivas Redy v the Union of India

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri P R Balaji Vs M/S Bhumi Enterprises

M/S. Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited Vs Nimisha Bansal

Mr. Nazru Sheeries Basheer, Vs Shri K S Narayana

Sri Shaji D Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Rashid Vs State of Karnataka

Dayananda G K Vs State of Karnataka