M/S U K Constructions Vs M/S Saanvipriya Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

M/S SAANVIPRIYA, BUILDTECH PVT LTD., NO.18, 4^TH FLOOR, 17^TH F CROSS, 2^ND STAGE INDIRA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560038. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.31, KANAKA NAGAR, 1ST STAGE, MV EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU- 562114, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI G.M.MOHAN

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 13 OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT DATED 07.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:18088 CMP No. 712 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶24

Sri. T.V.Vijay Raghavan, learned counsel appearing

¶25

for the petitioner referred to Clause-13 of the Work Contract Agreement dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure-A) and submitted that the resolution of dispute between the parties has to be made by an Arbitrator, hence sought for appointment of Arbitrator. Accordingly sought for allowing the petition.

¶26

Per contra, Sri. Rajesh Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent referred to Clause-13 of the Work Contract Agreement at Annexure-A and submitted that the matter has to be first referred to the Employer of the first party in the agreement i.e., KNNL and thereafter it has to be considered to sole Arbitrator, accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:18088 CMP No. 712 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

In the light of the submission made by the learned

¶31

counsels appearing for the parties, Clause-13 of the Work Contract Agreement dated 07.09.2020 at Annexure-A, reads as under:

¶32

"13) Arbitration:-

¶33

All questions and disputes arising out of or relating to the contract shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator with the Employer by or the decision of the signing authority of First Party. However, this contract is subject to jurisdiction of Bangalore city court only. This agreement is made in two copies one copy is retained with First Party and the other copy given to Second Party."

¶34

On careful consideration of the aforementioned

¶35

Clause, it is clear that the Employer of the first party is KNNL and being an Employer, if any dispute arises out of the agreement, firstly it has to be referred to the Employer of the first party to the said agreement. In that view of the matter, even if the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, there is an admission by the respondent in the reply to the notice, the same has to be considered by the Employer of the first party to the petitioner, and therefore, I am of the view that, it is open for the petitioner to approach the employer of the first party for resolution of the dispute.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:18088 CMP No. 712 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Accordingly, no interference is called for with regard to appointing an independent Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, petition is

¶40

dismissed .

¶41

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶42

SMJ

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

M/S U K Constructions v. M/S Saanvipriya Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S U K Constructions v. M/S Saanvipriya Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Deepak Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Chanakya Bharathi Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Jayamma Vs Puttaswamy @ Annaiah Shetty

Mr. Gautam R Shetty Vs Mr. Mohan N.J. Monteiro

The President Vs Mrs Rhea Chengappa C

M/S Talent Tribe Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Sobha Limited (Division