Allowed¶5

Mr Maximiliano Modesti v. Mrs Rekha Biswas

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2026COMAP/252/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 interim measures; Section 13(1-A) Commercial Courts Act 2015 appeal; Commercial Court Bengaluru CCH-88; jurisdiction objection - party to arbitration agreement is a foreign national; Com.A.A.No.279/2024 order dated 19.04.2025 set aside; ongoing arbitration; Section 17 application before the Arbitrator; contentions left open; Karnataka High Court Division Bench (Anu Sivaraman & Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ.), oral judgment dated 10.02.2026, COMAP No.252/2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed in Com.A.A.No.279/2024 set aside; appeal allowed; contentions of the parties left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. ¶5

Mr Maximiliano Modesti Vs Mrs Rekha Biswas — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed in Com.A.A.No.279/2024 set aside; appeal allowed; contentions of the parties left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the Commercial Court (LXXXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) had jurisdiction to consider an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where one party to the arbitration agreement (the appellant) is a foreign national; and consequently whether the order dated 19.04.2025 passed on that application should be set aside.

¶3

Court's answer

Having considered the contentions, the Court held that the order passed on the application filed under Section 9 of the Act cannot survive; accordingly the impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed in Com.A.A.No.279/2024 by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Commercial Court) (CCH-88), Bengaluru, was set aside and the appeal was allowed. No reasons on the underlying jurisdictional question were set out.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The contentions of the parties were left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings; pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Commercial Appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against an order dated 19.04.2025 passed in Com.A.A.No.279/2024 by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Commercial Court) (CCH-88), Bengaluru, on an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant, a party to the arbitration agreement, contended that the Commercial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 application since he is a foreign national; respondent No.1's counsel stated that arbitration was ongoing and interim measures, if required, could be sought under Section 17 before the Arbitrator. Held: the order passed on the Section 9 application cannot survive; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. Respondent No.1's counsel recorded as submitting that a Section 17 application would be filed before the Arbitrator. Contentions of the parties left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings; pending applications do not survive. No reasons were rendered on the jurisdictional question; no precedent cited.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7960-DB COMAP No.252/2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.252/2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MR. MAXIMILIANO MODESTI S/O DELFINO MODESTI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT. 62, FLOOR 3 EVERGREEN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DR. E. MOSES ROAD, SHAKTI MILL LANE MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI - 400 011.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, ADV., FOR SRI. KIRAN V. RON, ADV.,)

¶14

AND:

¶15

MRS. REKHA BISWAS D/O RAJKUMAR KHATRI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS C 601, SHRIRAM LUXOR HENNUR BAGLUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 077.

¶16

STUDIO SILAI LLP REGISTERED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT 2008 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY.33, MANASWI EDIFICE KOTHANUR MAIN ROAD

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7960-DB COMAP No.252/2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BEHIND AMMAS PASTERIES KOTHANUR, BENGALURU BENGALURU NORTH, KARNATAKA INDIA - 560 077 REP. HEREIN BY ALL ITS DESIGNATED PARTNERS.

¶20

SIDDHARTH NAVIN SALIAN S/O CHENNAPPA SALIAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT. AMBER KUTIR, 5TH FLOOR 166, SHIVAJI PARK DR. M.B. RAUT ROAD MUMBAI - 400 028.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. KARAN JOSEPH, ADV., FOR R1)

¶23

THIS COMAP/COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.04.2025 PASSED IN COM.A.A. NO.279/2024 BY THE LXXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-88) (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A & ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7960-DB COMAP No.252/2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶30

This appeal is filed under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking to set aside the order dated 19.04.2025 passed in Com.A.A.No.279/2024 by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Commercial Court) (CCH-88), Bengaluru.

¶31

Heard both sides.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶33

appellant that the present appeal is filed challenging the order dated 19.04.2025 passed in Com.A.A.No.279/2024. It is the contention of the appellant that the said order is passed on an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act' ). It is contended that one of the parties to the arbitration agreement viz., appellant, is a foreign national, and that there is no jurisdiction in the Additional City Civil

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:7960-DB COMAP No.252/2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

and Sessions Judge to consider the application under

¶38

Section 9 of the Act.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would also contend that arbitration is on going and in case any interim measures are required, the Arbitrator can be moved under Section 17 of the Act.

¶40

Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the submissions made, we are of the opinion that the order passed on the application filed under Section 9 of the Act cannot survive. Hence, the impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed in Com.A.A.No.279/2024 by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Commercial Court) (CCH-88), Bengaluru, is set aside. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed .

¶41