Ghodawat Enterprises Private Limited Vs Mr Thirumala Reddy Praneeth Reddy

GHODAWAT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 438, A/P-CHIPRI, POST-JAYSINGPUR, TALUKA SHIROL, DISTRICT-KOLHAPU – 416106 MAHARASHTRA, AND

¶11

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

¶12

HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT, STAR AIR, ROAD NO.1, KIADB HI-TECH DEFENCE AND AEROSPACE PARK, PLOT 13-A-P2, BANDE KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-562149, KARNATAKA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. RAJIT AJIT RATHOR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAG S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

MR THIRUMALA REDDY PRANEETH REDDY SON OF T.R RAYAPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT 6-3-841, SHANTHI NAGAR, INDIAN GAS, AMMRPET

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6999 CMP No. 407 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SECUNDERBAD, HYDERABAD 500 016.

¶19

RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. AYANTIKA MONDAL., ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT., 1996., PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR OR ARBITRATORS TO ENTER UPON REFERENCE IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 6.32 OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 3.06.2019 (AT ANNEXURE - C), TO ADJUDICATE ALL DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This 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 dispute between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of Clause 6.32 of the Appointment Letter vide Annexure “C” dated 03.06.2019 as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:6999 CMP No. 407 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The petitioner issued an appointment letter on 03.06.2019 to the respondent stating the detailed terms and conditions for employment which was accepted by the respondent. Pursuant to the appointment letter, the respondent executed a service agreement bond on 28.06.2019. The respondent’s training commenced at the costs and expenses of the petitioner, after completion of all the formalities, including him signing and accepting the appointment letter, the bond and all terms and conditions therein.

¶31

The respondent wrote an email dated 09.09.2021 seeking to tender his resignation with immediate effect, in utter violation and breach of the terms and conditions of the appointment letter and bond. The petitioner replied to the email of the respondent and asked the respondent to deposit an amount of ₹30,00,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the bond. The respondent has failed to pay the amount. There is an arbitration clause in the appointment

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6999 CMP No. 407 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

letter. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice dated 11.07.2024. The respondent did not reply to the arbitration notice and hence, this petition.

¶35

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arbitral dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has no objection to allow the petition.

¶38

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

The point that arises for consideration in this petition is as follows:

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6999 CMP No. 407 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

“Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the matter to the arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute in terms of Clause (6.32) of the Appointment Letter dated 03.06.2019 as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Rules?”

¶43

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner appointed the respondent and issued an appointment letter dated 03.06.2019. The respondent had executed a service bond dated 28.06.2019. The petitioner provided a training to the respondent at its own expenses. After completion of the training, the respondent submitted a resignation through an email. The petitioner did not accept the resignation and called upon the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. The respondent did not pay the said amount.

¶44

There is an arbitration clause in the appointment letter, i.e., Clause 6.32, which reads as under:

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:6999 CMP No. 407 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

“6.32 Dispute Resolution : If any dispute, difference or claim arises between the Parties in connection with this Agreement or the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged breach of this Agreement or anything done or committed to be done pursuant to this Agreement, the Parties shall refer the dispute, difference or claim for resolution to a sole arbitrator jointly appointed by the Parties and such arbitration shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory modification or reenactment thereof for the time being in force. In the event of disagreement on the appointment of Arbitrator, the Parties shall appoint one arbitrator each who shall together appoint an umpire. All proceedings in such arbitration shall be conducted in English. The arbitration shall take place in Bangalore. ”

¶49

From the perusal of clause 6.32, it is clear that, if any dispute, difference, or claim arises between the

¶50

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6999 CMP No. 407 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

parties in connection with the agreement, the said dispute shall be resolved through an arbitration.

¶53

The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice dated 11.07.2024 under Section 21 of the Act. The respondent did not reply to the arbitration notice.

¶54

There is an arbitration agreement, and an arbitral dispute arose between the parties to the petition, as such, the same has to be resolved through an arbitration.

¶55

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has no objection to allow the petition, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative and accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶56

8 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:6999 CMP No. 407 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed .

¶61

(ii) Sri.Vishwanth V.Angadi, Retired District Judge, is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of Clause 6.32 of the Appointment Letter as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Rules.

¶62

(iii) The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator and to the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre for doing the needful.

¶63

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

¶64

(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.

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:6999 CMP No. 407 of 2025

¶66

9 -

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

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

¶69

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶70

RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Ghodawat Enterprises Private Limited v. Mr Thirumala Reddy Praneeth Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghodawat Enterprises Private Limited v. Mr Thirumala Reddy Praneeth Reddy

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

Iqra Juniors LLP Vs State of Karnataka

Miss Akshitha H a Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Ms Vaishnavi Vijay Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Dr. Shankaramma E Vs the Principal

Bbr (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.