Allowed

M/S Cannas Lilly Infrastructure v. Mr. K S M Shabbir

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2026CMP/559/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Karnataka High Court appointed an arbitrator to resolve a dispute arising from a settlement agreement. The court held that objections regarding the signatory status of a respondent must be raised before the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. A.N. Venugopala Gowda as Arbitrator and direction to parties to appear before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre on 02.04.2026.

M/S Cannas Lilly Infrastructure Vs Mr. K S M Shabbir — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13166 CMP No. 559 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL MISC. PETITION No. 559 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S CANNAS LILLY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 2013 No.287/B 9^TH 'A' MAIN, 40^TH CROSS 5^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI J.CHENGAMA NAIDU.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI T.P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MR. K S M SHABBIR

¶13

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

¶14

AGED 75 YEARS S/O SRI SYED MOHIUDDIN SAB M/S.A.M.GROUPS, No.306 III FLOOR, LUCKY PARADISE 22^ND CROSS, III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶15

ALSO AT No.4/1, ZENITH CHAMBERS III FLOOR, OFF LAL BAUGH HOSUR ROAD WILSON GARDENS BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶16

MR. SYED AHMED AGED 85 YEARS S/O LATE SYED OMER

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:13166 CMP No. 559 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

No.37, 5^TH 'B' CROSS 16^TH MAIN, II STAGE, B.T.M.LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI SHRIKARA P K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI C PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ARBITRATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS ARISING FROM THE AGREEMENT FOR SETTLEMENT DATED 15.03.2024 AT ANNEXURES - F AS PER CLUASE 10.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶28

parties.

¶29

This petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) seeking appointment of Arbitrator in terms of clause 10 of the Agreement for Settlement dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure – F).

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13166 CMP No. 559 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

A perusal of the petition papers would indicate that, the petitioner herein had issued a notice to the respondents on 23.05.2024 (Annexure G) and same has been responded by the respondents denying the appointment of Arbitrator on the ground that respondent No. 2 is not a signatory to the Agreement for Settlement produced at Annexure F to the petition. It is argued by Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the appointment of the Arbitrator is necessitated in view of the provision provided for resolution of dispute at Annexure F to the petition. In this regard, Sri. Shrikara P.K., learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 opposed the appointment of the Arbitrator on the ground that respondent No. 2 is not a signatory to the agreement and therefore petition does not survive.

¶33

In the light of the submission made by the

¶34

learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that Clause 10 of the Agreement for Settlement at Annexure F

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13166 CMP No. 559 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

dated 15.03.2024 provides for appointment of Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute between the parties.

¶38

I have carefully consider the submissions made

¶39

by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as to the fact that respondent No. 2 is not a signatory to the agreement at Annexure F. However, these aspects have to be kept open to be urged before the learned Arbitrator and this Court while considering petition under Section 11 of the Act cannot consider the said aspect of the matter for opposing the petition for appointment of Arbitrator is concerned. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that petitioner has made out a case for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute.

¶40

Accordingly, Sri. A.N. Venugopala Gowda,

¶41

Former Judge of this Court is hereby appointed as the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties herein.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13166 CMP No. 559 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

In order to avoid delay in the matter, the

¶45

parties are directed to appear before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Race Course Road, Bengaluru, on 02.04.2026 at 11.00 a.m. On appearance of the parties, learned Arbitrator is requested to resolve the dispute at the earliest.

¶46

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru and also Sri. A.N. Venugopala Gowda, Former Judge of this Court forthwith.

¶47

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of.

¶48

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶49

LRS

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 Ct.sm

M/S Cannas Lilly Infrastructure v. Mr. K S M Shabbir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Cannas Lilly Infrastructure v. Mr. K S M Shabbir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Steevan R D Souza Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Ashish. v. S. Vs K.L.E. Societys Law College

Sri B v Malleshappa Vs Kptc Employees Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Janaki B N Vs Dayanada Sagar University

Sagar a Shetty Vs the Director

Mr Pawan Puthran Vs M/S Jabm One Source Pvt. Ltd.