FUTURENSE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD v. MILES EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4435-36/4, 1ST FLOOR, ANSARI ROAD, DARYA GANJ, CENTRAL DELHI, NEW DELHI, DELHI, INDIA - 110002 THROUGH REPRESENTATIVE ITS AUTHORIZED MR. VIKAS GUPTA. SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY MISS. NIKITHA SURABHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER

MILES EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: GROUND - 1ST FLOOR, WEST WING, JST- SILICON TOWERS, KONDAPUR, SERILINGAMPALLY MANDAL, HYDERABAD, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34069 CMP No.338 of 2025 HC-KAR TELANGANA-500084. REPRESENTATIVE BY VARUN JAIN. (BY SRI. ARJUN RAO, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT., PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE LMS AGREEMENT DATED 01.04.2022 ANNEXURED AT ANNEXURE A, PURSUANT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE AT CLAUSE 10 THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties based on Clause 10 of the Learning Management System Platform (LMS Platform) in the Agreement produced at Annexure-A to the petition.

It is argued by Miss. Nikitha Surabhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to Clause 10 of the Agreement dated 01.04.2022 produced at Annexure-A as well - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34069 CMP No.338 of 2025 HC-KAR as the notice dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure-H) addressed by the petitioner to the respondent and submitted that, as there is approximately more than Rs.7 Crores due to be payable pursuant to the agreement at Annexure-A, by the respondent, the said dispute has to be resolved only by an Arbitrator appointed in the present petition.

Per contra, Sri. Arjun Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that though there is agreement with regard to resolution of the dispute as stated in Clause 10, however, since Clause 10.1 provides for mutual discussion by representatives of the parties and an attempt has to be made for settlement of the dispute, and therefore, Clause 10.1 has to be applied in this petition. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent by referring to the letter dated

29.04.2024 (Annexure-A to the statement of objections) and by referring to the cancellation of the Agreement as per the letter dated 18.03.2023, that the petitioner has no claim against the respondent and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34069 CMP No.338 of 2025 HC-KAR

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition papers. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the Agreement produced at Annexure-A dated

01.04.2022, and refers to Clause 10 which provides for resolution of dispute between the parties through arbitration. Having taken note of Clause 10.1, though there is exchange of notice and reply notice between the parties, no proposal has been sent by each of the parties for settlement through their representatives. In that view of the matter, the dispute has to be resolved only by appointing an Arbitrator under the Act. In so far as the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent by referring to cancellation of the agreement dated 01.04.2022 as per letter dated 18.03.2023 is concerned, however the cancellation of the agreement dated 01.04.2022 is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, the question as to agreement dated 01.04.2022 is cancelled or not and whether the validity of the cancellation of the agreement as per letter dated

18.03.2023 has to be accepted or not, are all aspects that have - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34069 CMP No.338 of 2025 HC-KAR to be considered only under Clause 10 of the Agreement at Annexure-A. In that view of the matter, Hon'ble Shri. Justice Ajit J. Gunjal, former Judge of this Court is appointed as the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties herein.

In order to avoid delay in the matter, the parties are directed to appear before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Race Course Road, Bengaluru, on 25.09.2025 at

11.00 a.m. On appearance of the parties, learned Arbitrator is requested to dispose of the matter.

The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru and also to Hon'ble Shri. Justice Ajit J. Gunjal, former Judge of this Court, forthwith.

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20