Tejas Networks Limited Vs M/S Gtv Estates

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT ARBITRATOR AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER CLAUSE 24.4 OF THE MAIN SPACE AGREEMENT DT.05.12.2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE B, AND AS PER SEC.21 NOTICE 20.06.2025 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE G TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT AND APPOINT THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE-BENGALURU, (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL) OR SUCH OTHER INSTITUTION AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT, TO ADMINISTER THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS THEREIN.

¶23

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

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:1115 CMP No. 478 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶30

a) Appoint arbitrator as contemplated under Clause 24.4 of the Main Space Agreement dated 05.12.2017 produced as Annexure-B, and as per Section 21 Notice 20.06.2025 issued on behalf of Petitioner at ANNEXURE G, to adjudicate the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent;

¶31

b) Appoint the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre - Bengaluru (Domestic & International) or such other institution as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, to administer the arbitral proceedings; and

¶32

c) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity

¶33

2. The Petitioner and Respondent had entered into

¶34

a deed of lease on 05.12.2017, which is governed by an

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:1115 CMP No. 478 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

arbitration clause in terms of clause 24, which is

¶39

reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶40

24. DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

¶41

24.1 Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Lease Deed, the following provisions apply if any dispute or difference arises between the Parties in relating to the Lease De ('Dispute').

¶42

24.2 A Dispute will be deemed to arise when one Party serves on the other Party a notice stating the nature of the Dispute ('Notice of Dispute').

¶43

24.3 The Parties hereto agree that they will use all reasonable efforts to resolve between themselves, any Disputes through negotiations.

¶44

24.4 Any Dispute arising under or in connection with the Lease Deed which could not be settled by Parties through negotiations, after the period of thirty (30) business days from the service of the Notice of Dispute, shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and:

¶45

a) All proceedings shall be conducted in English and a daily transcript in English shall be prepared;

¶46

b) There shall be three (3) arbitrators, one to be selected by Lessor, one to be selected by Lessee and the third to be selected by the two arbitrators appointed by Lessor and Lessee, who shall serve as Chairman of the Arbitration Panel; and

¶47

c) The venue of arbitration shall be Bengaluru, India.

¶48

d) However, in the event any Dispute arising under or in connection with the Lease Deed could not be settled by Parties through arbitration shall be referred to the courts in Bengaluru and construed in accordance will the laws of lndia.

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:1115 CMP No. 478 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Alleging that there are certain disputes which have arisen between the parties, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause, and issued an arbitration notice on 20.06.2025 nominating its arbitrator by mail. The Respondent replied vide e-mail dated 16.07.2025, contending that the e-mail dated 20.06.2025 of the petitioner has been received, and that the respondent is in the process of consultation and will issue a comprehensive response. In that background, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶53

A notice having been issued, the Respondent has entered an appearance, in the meantime the Respondent has issued a further reply stating that the Respondent is agreeable for the appointment of three arbitrators and clarified that the Respondent is not agreeable for the appointment of a single arbitrator. It is further stated that the Respondent is willing to bear the cost associated with the appointment of arbitrators.

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:1115 CMP No. 478 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

In the above circumstances, though learned

¶58

counsel for the Respondent seeks for an adjournment to file objections, I am of the considered opinion that no such adjournment is required to be granted when the Respondent has categorically admitted that there could be an appointment of three arbitrators which could be made in terms of the aforesaid clause. The Petitioner having nominated its arbitrator, the said nomination is treated as the appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of the Petitioner. On behalf of the Respondent, I appoint Sri.Vishwanath V.Angadi, former District Judge of the District Judiciary, State of Karnataka as a sole arbitrator.

¶59

Both arbitrators are directed to appoint the Presiding arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties. The arbitration shall be carried out under the aegis of the Arbitration Centre attached to this Court, commencing from the date fixed by the Arbitral Tribunal as and when constituted.

¶60