Disposed¶40

Sangeetha M [email protected] Sangeetha v. Mrs Nivedita Shinde

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026CMP/468/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of sole arbitrator; Clause 17 Partnership Deed 09.05.2022; Clause 13 Instrument of Reconstitution of Partnership; defective Section 21 notice; partnership firm not arraigned as party; Annexure-F series notices; withdrawal with liberty to send fresh notice; no arbitrator appointed; NC: 2026:KHC:21973; HC-KAR; Justice E.S. Indiresh; Bengaluru; 21.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

No arbitrator appointed; petition disposed of on withdrawal by the petitioner with liberty to send a fresh notice (including to the partnership firm and the partners concerned) seeking appointment of the arbitrator in terms of Clause 13 of the Instrument of Reconstitution of Partnership dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure-A). ¶40

Sangeetha M G@M.G Sangeetha Vs Mrs Nivedita Shinde — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioners and the respondents in terms of Clause 17 of the Partnership Deed dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure-A).

¶27

Court's answer

The Court did not appoint an arbitrator; taking into consideration the submissions of counsel, it held that it is open to the petitioner to send notice to the partnership firm along with the partners concerned as to the claim made in terms of Clause 13 of the Instrument of Reconstitution of Partnership (Annexure-A).

¶38

Ratio / Principle

On counsel's request for leave to withdraw the petition (with liberty to send a fresh notice seeking appointment of the arbitrator based on the Instrument of Reconstitution of Partnership dated 09.05.2022, Annexure-A), the Court accordingly disposed of the petition without making any appointment.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (E.S. Indiresh, J.), Civil Misc. Petition No. 468 of 2025, decided 21.04.2026 - Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties in terms of Clause 17 of the Partnership Deed dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure-A). Respondent No.1 submitted that the Section 21 notices (Annexure-F series) were defective as the partnership firm had not been arraigned as a party or served notice. After argument, learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to send a fresh notice based on the Instrument of Reconstitution of Partnership dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure-A); the Court observed that it is open to the petitioner to send notice to the partnership firm along with the partners concerned as to the claim in terms of Clause 13 of that instrument, and disposed of the petition without appointing any arbitrator.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21973 CMP No. 468 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶8

CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 468 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SANGEETHA M [email protected] SANGEETHA

¶11

@ SANGEETHA MUNTHA @ SANGEETA MUNTHA

¶12

W/O. GOPALAKRISHNA MUNTHA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶13

RESIDING AT 579, 4TH CROSS, HTM LAYOUT RT NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032

¶14

SACHITA HERAL CHANNA KESHAVE @H.C SACHITA @ SACHITHA W/O. CHANNA KESHAVE HERAL RAMULU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT

¶15

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

29/17, RAJMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION 4TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU-560 080

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. HARSH S. PAREKH.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

MRS NIVEDITA SHINDE W/O. LATE SANTOSH A. SHINDE RESIDING AT NO. 208, UPPER PALACE ORCHARD BENGALURU-560 080

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:21973 CMP No. 468 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

MRS. SONALI SUDHARSHAN SHINDE W/O. LATE SUDHARSHAN A. SHINDE NOW RESIDING AT UNIT NO. A403, EMPRESS COURT APARTMENT NO. 67B, DOBARWADI, GHORPADI, PUNE-411 001

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. AJESH KUMAR S.,ADV. FOR R1, R2 SERVED)

¶27

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT., PRAYING TO APPOINT SHRI JUSTICE (RETD.) A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, FORMER JUDGE OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, OR ANY OTHER FIT AND PROPER PERSON AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENTS IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 17 OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 09.05.2022 (ANNEXURE A )

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

After arguing for some time, learned counsel

¶32

appearing for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to send a fresh notice to the parties concerned, seeking appointment of the Arbitrator based on the Instrument of Reconstitution of

¶33

Partnership dated 09.05.2022 as per Annexure-A.

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21973 CMP No. 468 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

In this regard, Sri. Ajesh Kumar.S, learned

¶37

counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that a defective notice under Section 21 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was issued as per Annexure-F series, wherein the partnership firm has not been arraigned as a party before this Court nor issued notice to the partnership firm.

¶38

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that, it is open for the petitioner herein to send notice to the partnership firm along with the partners concerned as to the claim made by the petitioner herein in terms of Clause 13 of the Instrument of Reconstitution of Partnership as

¶39

Annexure-A.

¶40

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶41

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 67

Sangeetha M [email protected] Sangeetha v. Mrs Nivedita Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeetha M [email protected] Sangeetha v. Mrs Nivedita Shinde

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

A G Totappa S/O Basappa Vs Neelamma W/O Govindappa

T.v.Nagaraj Vs Smt. Munilakshmamma

Smt. Prabhavati M Vs M/S Sunrise Group

Sri Narayanareddy K Vs State of Karnataka

Vikaram R Alias Vikki Vs State of Karnataka

Ummar Ismail Khan Vs Varalakshmamma