Dismissed¶¶37

Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Glatt Systems Private Ltd.

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026RP/497/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Glatt Systems Private Ltd.; RP No. 497 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka; Ashok S.Kinagi, J.; review petition dismissed; Section 114 CPC; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; error apparent on face of record; Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of arbitrator by consent; CMP No.60/2025; clause 30(2); Tender Notification dated 14.06.2023; Managing Director as arbitrator; Justice V.Jagannathan; no relief granted; no costs or amounts awarded.

What did the court decide?

Since the learned Arbitrator was appointed on the consent of both the parties, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order; accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. ¶¶36

Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Glatt… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8532 RP No. 497 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

REVIEW PETITION NO. 497 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KARNATAKA ANTIBIOTICS AND PHARMACEUTICALS

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING CI NO U24231KA1981GO1004145 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT ARKA - THE BUSINESS CENTER PLOT NO 37, SITE NO 34/4, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, 2^ND PHASE REF. BY MAHESH N C DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

¶13

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. T RAJARAM., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

GLATT SYSTEMS PRIVATE LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:8532 RP No. 497 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

GATE NO 321/2, 322/1, 324/1, 324/2 PUNE AHMEDNAGAR ROAD VILLAGE KONDHAPURI TALUKA SHIRUR, PUNE 412 209 MAHARASHTRA THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR SHONIL BAKARE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: SERVICE

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2025 PASSED IN CMP NO.60/2025 AND PERMIT THE PRESENT MANAGING DIRECTOR TO EXERCISE OPTION AS PER CLAUSE 30.2 OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:8532 RP No. 497 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has filed this review petition to review the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by this Court in CMP No.60 of 2025 wherein the respondent filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent therein submitted no objection to appoint an arbitrator.

¶31

After the consent of both the parties, this Court appointed Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Jagannathan, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of Clause 30(2) of the Tender Notification dated 14.06.2023 as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:8532 RP No. 497 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Now, the petitioner has filed this Review petition on the ground that the Managing Director ought to have been appointed as an arbitrator in terms of the clause 30(2) mentioned in the Tender document dated 14.06.2023.

¶36

In view of the fact that the learned Arbitrator was appointed on the consent of both the parties, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order.

¶37

Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed .

¶38

In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

¶39

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶40

RK CT:KHV

¶41

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Glatt Systems Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Glatt Systems Private 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

Jayaram P Vs the State of Karnataka

MD Shafi, Vs the Icici Bank Limited

Paulose M K Vs Bank of Baroda

Sri Shabeer Hussain Vs Canara Bank

Syed Zabiulla Vs the Authorized Officer

Shri P Srikrishna Vs M/S Jaya Shanmuga Projects Pvt. Ltd.