MISC. Petition No. 272 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20814 CMP No. 272 of 2022 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 272 OF 2022 BETWEEN: ELITE VEHICLES PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT “PRESTIGE TUDOR COURT", NO 40, LAVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU 560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. GURJIT SINGH, AGED 64 YEARS, SON OF MR. HUZUR SINGH (BY SRI. SUMANTHA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. APPAIAH P B., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. MR.R. RAVIKUMAR
Legal Reasoning
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI RAMACHANDRA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO 736, 1ST CROSS, CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU 560037 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. MR. N R SRIDHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJA REDDY, RESIDING AT BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL DODDANEKKUNDI, BENGALURU 560037 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHABALESHWAR G.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. RASHEED KHAN & SMT. VANAJAKSHI P, ADVOCATES FOR R2) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20814 CMP No. 272 of 2022 HC-KAR THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) AND (6) R/W SECTION 11(12)(B) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 AND PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME, 1996, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO APPOINT SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR OR AS AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS UNDER THE LEASE DEED DATED 19/10/2010 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. VRT-1- 04540-2010-11 IN CD NO. VRTD84 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, VARTHUR, BENGALURU, AS AT ANNEXURE-A, AWARD TO THE PETITIONER THE COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, AND , PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1996’ for short) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondents in terms of clause 10 of a registered lease deed dated 19.10.2010 vide - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20814 CMP No. 272 of 2022 HC-KAR Annexure-‘A’ as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The petitioner and the respondents have entered into a registered lease deed dated 19.10.2010 under which the petitioner took the lease from the respondents, commercial premises owned by them for a period of 20 years, and also paid the interest free refundable security deposit of Rs.23,75,000/- each, to the respondents. The said amount was refundable upon the petitioner vacating of the premises. The petitioner terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice of termination dated 17.03.2017. In July 2017 the petitioner vacated the lease premises and requested the respondents to return the security deposit amount. The petitioner issued a notice dated 17.11.2017 calling upon respondents to pay Rs.14,20,181 being the refundable security deposit. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20814 CMP No. 272 of 2022 HC-KAR 3. The respondents failed to refund the security deposit amount. The petitioner issued a demand notice on 22.10.2018 withdrawing the concession given to respondent No.2, and calling upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.14,20,181/- each with interest. The notice was received by respondent No.1, but the notice sent to respondent No.2 was returned undelivered as the door locked/unclaimed. There is an Arbitration Clause in the registered lease deed dated 19.10.2010. The petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause by issuing a arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act, 1996, on 11.05.2020, suggesting that the sole Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondents. The respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. Hence, this petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and respondents. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20814 CMP No. 272 of 2022 HC-KAR 5. Learned counsel for the respondents appearing through video conference, submits no objection to allow the petition. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The point, that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator in terms of the clause 10 of registered lease deed dated 19.10.2010 in terms of the provisions of Act, 1996? 8. Admittedly, there is a registered lease agreement executed between the petitioner and respondents, and as per the terms and conditions of a registered lease deed, the petitioner has paid Rs.23,75,000/- each, as a refundable security deposit, and the same is to be refunded to the petitioner upon vacating the premises. The petitioner vacated the premises in July 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded the refund of refundable security deposit by issuing a notice. Though, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20814 CMP No. 272 of 2022 HC-KAR notice was served on respondent No.1, the notice sent to respondent No.2 was returned as undelivered/door closed. Subsequently, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause, i.e. clause 10 of the lease deed by issuing the notice dated 11.05.2020. 9. The Arbitration Clause in the lease deed, reads as follows: “10. ARBITRATION referred Any and all disputes or differences that may arise under or in respect of or in any manner relating to the lease hereby granted shall be in to accordance with the terms of the Indian Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 or any re-enactment or modification thereof. The arbitration proceedings shall be held in Bangalore and jurisdiction for all legal matters will be Bangalore.” the arbitration 10. From a perusal of Clause 10 of a registered lease deed, it is seen that there is an Arbitration Clause. If any dispute/differences arise between the parties to the agreement, the dispute has to be resolved through the arbitration. The petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20814 CMP No. 272 of 2022 HC-KAR by issuing notice on 11.05.2020. Respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. There is an Arbitration Clause, and the dispute has to be resolved through arbitration. 11. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the sole Arbitrator. Hence, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (ii) Sri. Kukkaje Ramkrishna Bhat, Retd. District Judge is nominated as a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 10 of the registered lease deed as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Rules. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20814 CMP No. 272 of 2022 HC-KAR (iii) The Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bengaluru. (iv) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16