Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

SV3 Global Ventures Lp Vs Mr. Rakesh Vij — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
SV3 Global Ventures Lp Vs Mr. Rakesh VijSV3 Global Ventures Lp v. Mr. Rakesh Vij

Dismissed¶59

SV3 Global Ventures Lp v. Mr. Rakesh Vij

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026AP.IM/2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2026:KHC:1535 | High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru | AP.IM No. 2 of 2025 | SV3 Global Ventures LP (Mauritius) v. Rakesh Vij, Sanjiv Kapur, Truminds Software Systems, Amitabh Mathur, Lepton Software Pte Ltd., Emerise Ventures LLP and Rasa Tech Private Ltd. | Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 interim measures; temporary injunction; alleged breach of negative covenants in Shareholders Agreement and Constitution; preservation of electronic records | withdrawal memo citing settlement between parties | petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to institute fresh proceedings if settlement violated | Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J | Decided 12 January 2026 | Keywords: Section 9 A&C Act, interim measure, temporary injunction, withdrawal, settlement, liberty, shareholders agreement, non-compete.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty reserved to the petitioner to institute fresh proceedings in the event the settlement is violated.

Why is it important?

Taking note of the memo averments that the petitioner and the respondents have settled the disputes, and the submission of counsel, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ¶59

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty reserved to the petitioner to institute fresh proceedings in the event the settlement is violated.

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the memo averments that the petitioner and the respondents have settled the disputes, and the submission of counsel, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Key takeaways

Liberty as prayed for by the petitioner is reserved in the event circumstances arise that the settlement is violated.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim-measure petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Rule 9 of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001, in which SV3 Global Ventures LP sought a temporary injunction restraining Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from breaching Clauses 2.2(a) and 21.1 of the Shareholders Agreement and Clause 18.2 of the Constitution, together with directions for preservation of the communications, data and financial records of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The matter had been listed only before the Registrar for non-compliance of office objections and was never listed before the Court. During pendency the parties settled their disputes, and counsel filed a memo for withdrawal praying for disposal as withdrawn with liberty to institute fresh proceedings and with rights and contentions kept open. Taking note of the settlement and the submission of counsel, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, reserving the liberty sought by the petitioner in the event the settlement is violated. No issue was adjudicated on merits and no precedent was cited.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1535 AP.IM No. 2 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ARBITRATION PETITION-INTERIM

MEASURE NO. 2 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SV3 GLOBAL VENTURES LP, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNDER LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS, ACTING THROUGH AND REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL PARTNER, SERENITY VENTURES LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT C/O AMICORP (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, 6^TH FLOOR, TOWER 1, NEXTERACOM BUILDING, EBENE, REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SANJAY PALSAMUDRAM

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. RAKESH VIJ AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SON OF MR. SAT PRAKASH VIJ, RESIDING AT: B2 -1002, THE WORLD B2-1002, THE WORLD SPA WEST, SECTOR 30, GURGAON, HARYANA - 122 001.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1535 AP.IM No. 2 of 2025

HC-KAR

MR. SANJIV KAPUR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SON OF MR. RAGHUNATH RAI KAPUR RESIDING AT: D-11/10, 1^ST FLOOR, DLF PHASE 5, GALLERIA DLF-IV, FARRUKHNAGAR, GURGAON, HARYANA - 122 009.

TRUMINDS SOFTWARE SYSTEMS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER MAURITIUS COMPANIES ACT, 2001 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 6^TH FLOOR, TOWER 1, NEXTERACOM BUILDING, EBENE, MAURITIUS, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS.

MR. AMITABH MATHUR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O MOHAN PRAKASH MATHUR, RESIDING AT: 14908, ARDERE CT. SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 USA.

LEPTON SOFTWARE PTE LTD., A COMPANY UNDER THE LAWS OF SINGAPORE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 1 # 07-10, NORTH BRIDGE ROAD HIGHT STREET CENTRE, SINGAPORE-179 094 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

EMERISE VENTURES LLP., A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1535 AP.IM No. 2 of 2025

HC-KAR

UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: D11/10, FIRST FLOOR, EXCLUSIVE FLOORS, DLF CITY, PHASE-5, DLF QE, GURUGRAM - 122 002, HARYANA, INDIA, REPRSENTED BY DESIGNATED PARTNERS.

RASA TECH PRIVATE LTD., A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 570, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-V, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX DUNDAHERA, GURUGRAM, HARYANA - 122 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 READ WITH RULE 9 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ARBITRATION (PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURTS) RULES, 2001 PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 FROM EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BREACHING CLAUSE 2.2(a) AND 21.1 OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT DATED 05.03.2019 (ANNEXURE "F") AND CLAUSE 18.2 OF THE CONSTITUTION DATED 09.07.2019 (ANNEXURE "K") AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1535 AP.IM No. 2 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo

for withdrawal which reads as hereunder:

"The advocate for the Petitioner humbly submits as follows:

1. The present Petition has been filed before this Hon'ble Court seeking the following reliefs:

i. Pass an order of temporary injunction restraining Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from either directly or indirectly breaching clause 2.2(a) and 21.1 of the Shareholders Agreement dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure "") and clause 18.2 of the Constitution (Annexure "");

ii. Pass an order of temporary injunction restraining Respondent Nos.1. and 2 from, directly or indirectly competing with Respondent No.3 or its subsidiaries, either through Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 or in any other manner, as long as Respondents No.1 and 2 are shareholders of Respondent No.3;

iii. Direct Respondent Nos.6 and 7, their assigns, relatives, successors-in-interest, representatives, servants, employees, agents, etc., and anyone associated with them or acting under or through them including but not limited to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to produce before this Hon'ble Court or any person nominated/designated/appointed by this Hon'ble Court, for preservation, all Respondent Nos.6 and 7's communications, emails, data, servers, financial records and

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1535 AP.IM No. 2 of 2025

HC-KAR

accounts in general and invoices, sales figures, software and technologies contained in computer systems, cloud storage services, laptops, tablets, CPUS, Hard Disks, CDs, DVDs, pen drives and / or any other storage media.

iv. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The captioned matter was listed before the Registrar for non-compliance of office objections and has not been listed before this Hon'ble Court.

3. During the pendency of the matter, the Petitioner and Respondents have settled the disputes.

4. In light of the above, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispose of the present petition as withdrawn with liberty to institute fresh petition or file further proceeding in the event the Petitioner is aggrieved by any future actions of the Respondents and keep all rights and contentions of the Petitioner open for consideration any such future action that may be instituted by the Petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity.

Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispose of the present petition as withdrawn keeping all rights and contentions of the Petitioner open and

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1535 AP.IM No. 2 of 2025

HC-KAR

granting liberty to the Petitioner to institute fresh proceedings, in the interests of justice and equity."

Taking note of the averments in the memo that

the petitioner and the respondents have settled the disputes and the submission of the counsel, the petition is

dismissed as withdrawn.

In the event, there are circumstances that may

so arise that the settlement is violated, the liberty as prayed for by the petitioner is reserved. Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the liberty

sought for.

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

MCR

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Section 9¶29
High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001Rule 9¶29

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Rule 9 of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001, praying for temporary injunction restraining Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from breaching Clause 2.2(a) and 21.1 of the Shareholders Agreement and Clause 18.2 of the Constitution.¶29
Prior proceeding
Matter listed before the Registrar for non-compliance of office objections; never listed before the Court.¶48
Prior proceeding
During pendency, the petitioner and respondents settled the disputes; counsel filed a memo for withdrawal seeking disposal as withdrawn with liberty to institute fresh proceedings and rights/contentions kept open.¶49

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SV3 Global Ventures LP¶12
Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni
respondent
Rakesh Vij¶16
respondent
Sanjiv Kapur¶19
respondent
Truminds Software Systems¶20
respondent
Amitabh Mathur¶21
respondent
Lepton Software Pte Ltd.¶22
respondent
Emerise Ventures LLP.¶23
respondent
Rasa Tech Private Ltd.¶27

Coram

AI extract

S Sunil Dutt Yadavauthor¶31

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 12 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 4 Feb 2025
Case no.: AP.IM/2/2025
CNR: KAHC010079622025
Topic: Arbitration
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Arbitration Petition-Interim Measure

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from S Sunil Dutt Yadav

Smt Susheela Vs the State of Karnataka
9 Jan 2026
Sri. Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka
9 Jan 2026
M/S. Shree Mallikarjuna Enterprises, Vs State of Karnataka
9 Jan 2026
G. T. Babu Reddy Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
12 Jan 2026
Sri a M Mayanna Vs Sri Mayiga @ Kuntegowda
12 Jan 2026
Sri. S. Srinivasa Reddy Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
12 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

SV3 Global Ventures Lp v. Mr. Rakesh Vij, AP.IM/2/2025 (KA), decided on 12 January 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Section 9
High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001Rule 9

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Rule 9 of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001, praying for temporary injunction restraining Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from breaching Clause 2.2(a) and 21.1 of the Shareholders Agreement and Clause 18.2 of the Constitution.
Matter listed before the Registrar for non-compliance of office objections; never listed before the Court.

View full history

Bench / Coram

S Sunil Dutt Yadav

Parties & counsel