Disposed¶38

Anex Realty Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Sobha Limited

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2026CMP/587/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: arbitration; appointment of sole arbitrator; Section 11(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 11; condition precedent; amicable settlement; Clause 25; Channel Partner Agreement dated 10.06.2020; premature invocation; Legal Notice 01.04.2025; Arbitration Centre - Karnataka; Anex Realty Services Pvt. Ltd.; Trespect India Private Limited; Sobha Limited; Sobha Limited v. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya Krishna Properties Ltd.; 2022 SCC Online Kar 1708; High Court of Karnataka; Justice E.S. Indiresh; documents returned; contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty reserved to the parties to resolve the dispute in terms of Clause-25 of the agreement; Registry directed to return the documents produced by the petitioner; all contentions of the parties kept open. ¶38

Anex Realty Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sobha Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether, given that Clause-25 of the agreement makes amicable settlement between the parties a condition precedent, the petitioner's invocation of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is premature. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

Clause-25 of the agreement itself makes amicable settlement between the parties at the initial stage a condition precedent; since such settlement had not been arrived at, invoking Section 11 of the Act by the petitioner is premature.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Following this Court's judgment in Sobha Limited Vs. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya Krishna Properties Ltd. (2022 SCC Online Kar 1708), appointment of an Arbitrator cannot be made at this stage; the petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the parties to resolve the dispute in terms of Clause-25 of the agreement.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Misc. Petition No. 587 of 2025 (under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) — Anex Realty Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Sobha Limited (High Court of Karnataka, E.S. Indiresh J., 23 March 2026): Clause-25 of the Channel Partner Agreement dated 10.06.2020 (Annexure-A) makes amicable settlement between the parties at the initial stage a condition precedent for invoking Section 11 of the Act. As no such settlement had been arrived at, the petitioner's invocation of Section 11 was held premature; following this Court's judgment in Sobha Limited Vs. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya Krishna Properties Ltd., 2022 SCC Online Kar 1708, appointment of a sole arbitrator could not be made at this stage. The petition was disposed of with liberty reserved to the parties to resolve the dispute in terms of Clause-25; the Registry was directed to return the petitioner's documents and all contentions were kept open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:16378 CMP No. 587 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 587 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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

¶10

ANEX REALTY SERVICES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. TRESPECT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. AMIT KUMAR JHA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1002, 10^TH FLOOR, B WING, ONE BKC, G BLOCK BANDRA, KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI - 400 051, ALSO THE REGIONAL OFFICE AT MUNICIPAL KATHA NO.458, MILLENIUM TOWER, KUNDALAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 037. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. A. KUNDAVAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SOBHA LIMITED HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT SOBHA, SARJAPUR-MARATHABALLI, OUTER RING ROAD (ORR), DEVARABISANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 103

¶13

DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:16378 CMP No. 587 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

MR. JAGADISH NANGINENI.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. H. MUJTABA, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. PRAKASH RAO JADHAVADVOCATE BENGALURU, KARNATAKA UNDER THE AGES OF THE ARBITRATION CENTRE - KARNATAKA WITHIN (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL) BENGALURU AS THE LD. SOLE ARBITRATOR OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE PERSON FOR ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS OF PARTIES AS PER CLAUSE 25 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 10.06.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE - A.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

¶25

In this Petition, the petitioner is seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, as per Clause-25 of the Channel Partner Agreement dated 10.06.2020 (Annexure-A).

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16378 CMP No. 587 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the Legal Notice dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure-L) and submitted that, appointment of an Arbitrator is necessitated for resolution of the dispute between the parties.

¶29

Per contra, Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior

¶30

Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. H. Mujtaba, learned counsel appearing for the respondent invited the attention of the Court to Clause-25 of the agreement at Annexure-A and submitted that, the said clause provides for amicable settlement between the parties at the initial stage and in the event, if the same is not resolved, then the petitioner can approach this Court by invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act). Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of Clause-25 of the agreement at AnnexureA, it is observed that the condition precedent for invoking

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:16378 CMP No. 587 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Section 11 of the Act is an amicable settlement between

¶36

the parties as to the dispute arisen between them. In the event, if such a settlement is not arrived by the parties, then it is open for the aggrieved parties to approach this Court by invoking Section 11 of the Act.

¶37

In that view of the matter, as a condition precedent has been made in the Clause-25 of the agreement itself for amicable settlement between the parties at the initial stage, I am of the view that invoking Section 11 of the Act by the petitioner is premature.

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of,

¶39

reserving liberty to the parties for resolution of the dispute in terms of Clause-25 of the agreement, I am of the view that, at this stage, appointment of an Arbitrator cannot be made by following judgment of this Court in the case of

¶40

Sobha Limited Vs. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya Krishna Properties Ltd. , reported in 2022 SCC Online Kar 1708 .

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:16378 CMP No. 587 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44