Smt. Rashmi G.C., Vs Smartowner Services India Private Limited

SMT. RASHMI G.C., W/O. SRI. PRAMOD KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. 404, KALPATHARU, 4TH MAIN, COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT, HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU-560 024.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. RAVI S K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMARTOWNER SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED REP. BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, HAVING ITS REG. OFFICE AT

¶16

8^TH FLOOR, DELTA BLOCK, SIGMA TECH PARK, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066.

¶17

SILVERSTREAM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9425 CMP No. 207 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REP. BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, HAVING ITS REG. OFFICE AT LEVEL 3 AND 4, EMBASSY DIAMANTE, 34, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

MITCON CREDENTIA TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LIMITED, EARLIER KNOWN AS MITCON TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, HAVING ITS REG. OFFICE AT KUBERA CHAMBERS, 1ST FLOOR, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE-411 005.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. GIRI K, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O DATED 31.10.2025 NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (VK NOT FILED) R3 SERVED)

¶24

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION AND APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED 19.07.2021 AND 20.07.2021 AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:9425 CMP No. 207 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the arbitral dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Article 10 of the Master Service Agreement dated 19.07.2021 and 20.07.2021 vide Annexure A, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules.

¶32

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶33

The petitioner made an investment of Rs.14,10,000/with the respondent No.1 company by executing a Booking Agreement on 11.08.2016 in Century Enessen Hillview project. Subsequently on

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:9425 CMP No. 207 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

20.07.2021, respondent No.1 executed a full and final settlement agreement with the petitioner through its SPV company Pinehill properties private limited stating that her investments shall be converted into Non-Convertible Debentures (for short

¶38

‘NCD’) for a sum of Rs.14,10,000/-. Respondent No.2 is the SPV (Special purpose vehicles) and allied company of respondent No.1. The respondents have failed to perform their obligations contained in the Master services agreement dated 19.07.2021 and 20.07.2021 and the NCD dated 22.09.2021 entered into with the petitioner. The respondents were supposed to pay the coupon rates. However, they have not paid the same. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked arbitration clause and issued an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, dated 31.01.2024 and proposed the name of Sri. H.R.Srinivas, Retired Principal District and Sessions Judge as an arbitrator to initiate the

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9425 CMP No. 207 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

arbitration proceedings against all the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 have replied to the said notice. Hence, this petition and accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondents submits no objection to allow the petition.

¶43

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶44

The point, that would arise for consideration is as follows:

¶45

“Whether the petitioner has made a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration in terms of Article 10 of the Master's Service Agreement dated 19.07.2021 and 20.07.2021 at Annexure-A, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the rules?”

¶46

The petitioner and respondents have entered into a Master Service Agreement on 19.07.2021 and

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:9425 CMP No. 207 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

20.07.2021 . The respondents committed a breach of terms and conditions of Master Service Agreement. The petitioner issued a legal notice dated 31.01.2024 seeking the consent to the appointment of the intended arbitrator which stood unreplied by respondent No.2, which is the SPV of the respondent No.1. There is an arbitration clause in the Master Service Agreement at clause 10 which reads as follows:

¶51

10“Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution”

¶52

All questions concerning the construction, validity and interpretation of this agreement shall be governed by the laws of India, and subject to this clause, the courts at Bangalore shall have exclusive jurisdiction. The parties shall amicably resolve any and all disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement, failing which, the dispute shall be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The parties shall mutually appoint a sole arbitrator to conduct the arbitration proceedings. The

¶53

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:9425 CMP No. 207 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

venue for arbitration shall be Bangalore, and the language for arbitration shall be English.

¶56

From the perusal of the arbitration clause, it is clear that, if any dispute arises between the parties to the petition, the said dispute shall be resolved through an arbitration. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause and the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice dated 31.01.2024 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶57

Learned counsel for the respondents submits no objection to appoint the sole Arbitrator.

¶58

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and for the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration. Accordingly, I answer the point in the ‘ affirmative’ .

¶59

In the result, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶60

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:9425 CMP No. 207 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed .

¶64

(ii) Sri. Vishwanath V. Angadi, learned District Judge (retired) is nominated as an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties to the petition in terms of clause 10 of the Agreement at Anenxure-A, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules.

¶65