SRI KASTHALA RAMALINGESWARA RAO v. M/S ANTHEM BIOPHARMA PVT LTD
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ss. 11, 11(5)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. At this stage, I am unable to accept the said submission since whether the claim is barred by limitation or not being a mixed question of fact and law, the same would have to be decided by the arbitrator so appointed inasmuch as it…
Judgment
CORPORATE IDENTITY NO. U24232KA2009PTC051551 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.49, CANARA BANK ROAD, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-2, BENGALURU-560100. REP. BY SRI.AJAY BHARDWAJ
#2. SRI.AJAY BHARDWAJ S/O. PREMCHAND BHARADWAJ R/AT A4, EPSILON GREENS, YAMALUR MAIN ROAD, NEXT TO LOGICA YAMALUR, BENGALURU-560037.
#3. SRI. MANJUNATH.B.S. S/O.SRI.BHAVANI SHANKAR R/AT NO.16, 2ND MAIN, SHREYAS COLONY, J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560078. RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51535 CMP No. 67 of 2025 HC-KAR
#4. SRI. VENKATA CHALAM CHITRAPU S/O.SRI.CHITRAPU VENKATA CHALAM R/AT NO.4F4 SAI VISHWANATHA TOWERS ACHARI STREET, SALYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-52, ANDHRA PRADESH. (BY SRI. I S DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; …RESPONDENTS V/O DTD: 17.10.2025 R3 & R4 ARE DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINTMENT OF SOLE ARBITRATOR AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF NON PAYMENT OF THE SHARE PURCHASE AS PER ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN PARA NO.20 AND 21 VIDE ANNEXURE A DTD: 4.2.2011. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER
#1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. To appointment of sole arbitrator as required under section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act 1996 to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in respect of non payment of the share purchase as per arbitration clause in para No.20 and 21 vide Annexure A dtd: 4.2.2011. b. Award cost and other reliefs deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51535 CMP No. 67 of 2025 HC-KAR
#2. The petitioner and the respondents had entered into a Share Purchasing Agreement on 04.02.2011 which is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of Clause 9.1, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: All
9.1 Governing Law, Jurisdiction & Dispute Resolution: concerning questions construction, validity and interpretation of this Agreement will be governed by the laws of India. Any disputes or differences whatsoever between the Parties which cannot be settled by mutual discussions shall be settled by arbitration at Bangalore under and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Nothing contained in this clause will preclude any Party from applying for and obtaining any injunctive, prohibitory or other similar urgent or interim relief from a competent Court of law, for which the Courts at Bangalore shall have exclusive jurisdiction.
#3. The petitioner resigned from the Directorship of respondent no.1 - company in the year 2019 and thereafter for the first time raised a claim on the respondent on 29.12.2021 for payment of the due amounts, which was replied to by the respondent on
24.01.2022 denying the demands made by the petitioner. Subsequently a further notice had been issued on 14.08.2023, invoking the arbitration - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51535 CMP No. 67 of 2025 HC-KAR clause, appointing an arbitrator, which again came to be replied on 28.08.2023, denying the same. Proceedings in CMP No.384/2023 having been filed before this Court, this Court, by order dated
19.03.2024, dismissed the said petition reserving liberty to issue a fresh notice to all the parties to the agreement since the earlier notice had been issued to only few of them. Hence a notice was issued on
06.04.2024 again invoking the arbitration clause in pursuance of which the respondent replied denying its liability. Hence the petitioner filed one more CMP in CMP No.235/2024, which came to be disposed by this court on 03.12.2024 reserving liberty to the petitioner to issue another fresh notice, this time including the company since the company had not been issued a notice. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner issued a notice on 07.01.2025 this time to all the parties to the agreement. Again the liability was denied by the respondent in its reply. In that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51535 CMP No. 67 of 2025 HC-KAR background, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
#4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the above petition is ex-facie barred by limitation inasmuch as the petitioner having resigned in the year 2019, the present petition filed now is ex-facie barred by limitation.
#5. At this stage, I am unable to accept the said submission since whether the claim is barred by limitation or not being a mixed question of fact and law, the same would have to be decided by the arbitrator so appointed inasmuch as it cannot be said that it is ex facie barred by limitation, when the petitioner had issued the first notice on 29.12.2021, filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition before this Court, when liberty was reserved by this Court to the petitioner to issue a fresh notice and then approach this Court if the respondent were not agreeable. Liberty having been reserved by the Co-ordinate - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51535 CMP No. 67 of 2025 HC-KAR Bench of this Court to the petitioner on two earlier occasions, the time spent in the meanwhile cannot ex facie be said to be barred by limitation. The same would have to be decided by the arbitrator after evidence is laid. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: i) ii) ORDER CMP is allowed. Sri Radhakrishna Holla K, former District Judge of the District Judiciary is appointed as a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties under the aegis of the Arbitration Centre attached to this Court. iii) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre for doing the needful. iv) Since the order is passed in the presence of all the counsel, the parties shall appear before the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:51535 CMP No. 67 of 2025 HC-KAR without requirement of any notice on
16.12.2025 at 2.30 p.m. v) All contentions including limitation are kept open which shall be decided by the arbitrator without being influenced by any of observations made in the present order. vi) All contentions are kept open. vii) Registry is directed to return the original and/or certified copies, if produced, to the respective parties who have produced it/them by following due procedure. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss. 11, 11(5).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 05 Dec 2025. The bench was SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, SHREYAS COLONY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.