M/S Prodapt Solutions Private Limited Vs M/S Concept Classic Converge Private Limited

M/S PRODAPT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PRODAPT HEADQUARTERS, NO. 25 A & B, SOUTH PHASE, 5^TH CROSS STREET, THIRU VI KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI - 600032 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SRINIVAS DAYAL PATNAIKUNI

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SUNIL P.P., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

M/S CONCEPT CLASSIC CONVERGE PRIVATE LIMITED NO.251, 2^ND FLOOR, 17^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, 6^TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560102 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(V/O DATED 19.01.2026 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS H/S)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10570 CMP No. 293 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5/6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO A RETIRED JUDGE OF HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT AS SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEREIN ARBITRATION CLAUSE PARA 19 IN ANNEXURE C IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) for resolving the disputes between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 19 of the Service Agreement dated 16.05.2022 vide Annexure-C as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner and the respondent entered into a Service Agreement dated 16.05.2022 for co-working space and 500 inventory units at Salarpuria softzone,

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10570 CMP No. 293 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Bengaluru for a period of 3 years (from 01.06.2022 to 15.05.2025) with a lock-in period of 18 months. The petitioner paid a total security deposit of Rs.2,43,30,000/-. On 08.11.2023, the petitioner issued a Termination Notice with effect from 29.02.2024. The respondent accepted the termination and requested the petitioner to vacate the premises by 04.02.2024 and the same was complied with by the petitioner.

¶30

On, 29.01.2024, the petitioner sent an email providing a reconciliation of accounts, seeking adjustment of Rs.1,97,65,914/- and a refund of Rs.45,46,086/- from the security deposit amount. However, the respondent refunded only Rs.14,41,842/-, leaving a balance of Rs.20,23,224/-.

¶31

On 27.08.2024, the petitioner issued a demand notice seeking the payment of balance security amount. Further, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing the arbitration notice

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10570 CMP No. 293 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

dated 12.11.2024. The respondent responded by sharing a draft surrender deed via email, agreeing to pay Rs.17,78,336/- as full and final settlement. The petitioner replied stating that upon receipt of the payment of Rs.17,78,336/-, they would execute the surrender deed. However, the respondent neither replied to the communication nor made the said payment.

¶35

The petitioner issued a second legal notice demanding the payment and reiterated the nomination of an arbitrator. However, the respondent did not concur in appointing the arbitrator. Hence, this petition.

¶36

Despite the service of notice to the respondent, the respondent remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶37

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10570 CMP No. 293 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the Service Agreement at Annexure-C having been entered into by the parties to the petition, the arbitral dispute arose and the petition has invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act. The Agreement contains the arbitration clause and the dispute has to be resolved through arbitration. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to allow the petition.

¶41

Perused the records, and considered the submissions

¶42

of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶43

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

¶44

“Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration in terms of Clause 19 of the Service Agreement dated 16.05.2022 vide Annexure-C as

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:10570 CMP No. 293 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

per the provisions of the Act and the Rules?”

¶49

It is undisputed that, the petitioner and the respondent entered into the service agreement dated 16.05.2022. The petitioner paid a total security deposit of Rs.2,43,30,000/-. After termination, the respondent did not repay the whole security deposit amount. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause on two occasions.

¶50

I have perused the arbitration clause at Clause 19 of the Service Agreement at Annexure-C, which reads as follows:

¶51

“19. Arbitration:

¶52

All disputes as my arise, will be resolved by arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by appointing mutually acceptable Arbitrators. The venue of Arbitration will be Bangalore.”

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:10570 CMP No. 293 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

From the perusal of the aforementioned arbitration clause, it is evident that, all the disputes which may arise are subject to resolution through arbitration. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause and the dispute arose between the parties to the petition which is arbitral in nature and the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice on two occasions.

¶57

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.

¶58

In the result, I pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed .

¶61

(ii) Sri.Khan Liyakat Ali Khan, learned retired District Judge, is nominated as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 19 of the

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:10570 CMP No. 293 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Service Agreement dated 16.05.2022 , as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Rules.

¶66

(iii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Director of the Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bangalore.

¶67

(iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶68

(v) The Registry is directed to return the original and/or certified copies, if produced, to the respective parties who have produced it/them by following due procedure.

¶69

(vi) Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶70

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶71

RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

M/S Prodapt Solutions Private Limited v. M/S Concept Classic Converge Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Prodapt Solutions Private Limited v. M/S Concept Classic Converge Private Limited

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

Mr.Dilip Kumar a Shah Vs Union of India

Yashwanth Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Gulab Vs Sri C H Doddaiah

Maharashtra Resco Rooftop Solar Private Limited Vs Bangalore University

Mr Ruzbeh D Framjee Vs Mrs Beena Murali

Arvind Youths Brands Private Limited Vs Bansal Trading Co.