Robosoft Technologies Private Limited Vs Gridlogic Games Private Limited

ROBOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 217, N H 66, SANTHEKATTE, NEW UDUPI, UDUPI, KARNATAKA, INDIA-576105 REPRESENTED BY BHARATH REDDY NADIG SR. GROUP MANAGER ROBOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED. …PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HIMAMSHU M SRIVATHSA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESH VELLAKATT., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

GRIDLOGIC GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED ALTF GLOBAL, 1^ST FLOOR, GLOBAL FOYER MALL,

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:3359 CMP No. 444 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

GOLF COURSE ROAD, GURGAON. HARYANA-122202-INDIA EMAIL [email protected] PH 9849719970 ALSO AT GRIDLOGIC GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED, ALTF JMD EMPIRE SQUARE, MR-1, UNIT 1, 3^RD FLOOR, SECTOR-28, NEAR SIKANDERPUR GHOSI, M G ROAD, DLF QE, GURGAON, HARYANA, INDIA-122002

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. SNEHA NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER 11(5) FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE AS PER CLAUSE 16(a) OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 08.04.2022 (ANNEXURE A) THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO PAYMENT OF THE OUTSTANDING DUES.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3359 CMP No. 444 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner filed this civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for short) to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute as per Clause 16(a) of the agreement dated 08.04.2022 vide Annexure-A.

¶27

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

¶28

2.1. The respondent, who has a Playboyrummy

¶29

software software application, approached the petitioner seeking resources to be allotted to them for working on such issues/builds/defects shared to resources for it to be rectified Playboyrummy’s two modules - Gameroom and Lobby. Accordingly, a generic master service agreement came to be executed between the petitioner and the respondent on 08.04.2022. Specific statement of work was executed for supply of resources on 18.05.2022. The dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent.

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3359 CMP No. 444 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioner issued a legal notice on 30.06.2023 demanding outstanding payment of ₹33,92,500/- with 18% interest. The respondent replied to the legal notice on 07.08.2023. The petitioner issued a rejoinder to the reply notice on 05.03.2024. The petitioner invoked arbitration clause by issuing the arbitration notice on 09.01.2025. The respondent did not reply to the arbitration notice. Hence, this petition.

¶33

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

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent submits no objections to allow the petition.

¶35

Perused the records and considered the

¶36

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

The point that would arise for consideration is as follows:

¶38

Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the learned Arbitrator in

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3359 CMP No. 444 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

terms of clause 16(a) of the agreement dated

¶42

08.04.2022?

¶43

The undisputed facts are, that the agreement

¶44

was executed between the petitioner and the respondent vide Annexure-A on 08.04.2022. The dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner issued a legal notice demanding payment of outstanding dues. The respondent replied to the legal notice refusing to pay the outstanding dues. As the dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing the arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act on 09.01.2025.

¶45

The dispute has been arisen between the petitioner and the respondent, and the same has to be adjudicated through arbitration. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted no objection to allow the petition. In view of the same, the petitioner has made out a ground to appoint an Arbitrator.

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:3359 CMP No. 444 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. The civil miscellaneous petition is allowed ;

¶52

ii. Hon’ble Smt. Justice K.S.Mudagal , Former Judge of this Court is appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of clause 16(a) of the agreement dated 08.04.2022 vide Annexure-A, as per the provisions of the Act;

¶53

iii. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator, and Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru;

¶54

iv. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶55

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶56

PA

¶57

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

¶58

CT:KHV

Robosoft Technologies Private Limited v. Gridlogic Games Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robosoft Technologies Private Limited v. Gridlogic Games 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

N Shivanna Vs Ugraiah

Smt. Manjula T R Vs Canara Bank

Sri Ramakrishna Vs Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Society

Shri Dinesh H S Vs Sammaan Capital Limited

Mr Jayappa Vs Manappuram Home Finance Ltd.

M/S Sri Shankar Plywood and Board Industries Vs Karur Vysya Bank Limited