MISC. Petition No. 449 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12701 CMP No. 449 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 449 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. M/S SKANRAY TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANEIS ACT) HAVING OFFICE AT PLOT No. 15-17 HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-570 016. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY (BY SRI. MANIKANTA .H.B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SAGAR .M.N S/O NAGESH .M.C AGED ABOUT MAJOR BUKANAERE, BALLENAHALLI BUKKINAKERE, MANDYA-571 812. …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. MANJEGOWDA .D.S, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES UNDER SECTION 11 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 20.10.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE B AT PARA 19, AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12701 CMP No. 449 of 2024 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, for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute that has arisen between the parties as per the Service Agreement dated 20.10.2021 vide Annexure B. 2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The respondent was offered employment at Mysore as an ‘Engineer’ of the petitioner - company on 20.10.2021 vide Service Agreement (offer of employment). Subsequently, the respondent was employed as an Engineer on probation for one year and thereafter on regular rolls for another four years, on successful completion of training period by intimating the respondent the policies of the petitioner – company. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12701 CMP No. 449 of 2024 Subsequently, the respondent sent a resignation on 09.05.2023 through email to his reporting manager and thereafter did not report to work. The petitioner issued a notice on 29.06.2023 to report back to the work and complete the formalities immediately. The respondent did not return to work and did not complete the formalities as required under the petitioner- company’s policies, and again issued a legal notice to the respondent on 01.08.2023 to report back to work and complete the formalities within 15 days, thereafter, the respondent issued a suitable reply on 16.08.2023. The respondent did not return to work even after the issuance of the legal notice and did not complete the formalities as required under the petitioner-company’s policies. There being a dispute, the petitioner issued a arbitration notice dated 30.10.2023 seeking approval of the respondent to appoint the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute. 3. The respondent replied to the notice on 18.11.2023 stating that there is no arbitral clause - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12701 CMP No. 449 of 2024 applicable to the respondent, and as such, denied the approval to the appointment of an Arbitrator. The petitioner issued a rejoinder dated 12.12.2023. Thus, a cause of action arose for the petitioner to file this petition. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection for appointing an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the petitioner has made a ground to appoint an arbitrator to refer the dispute between the parties in terms of clause 19 of the Service Agreement (offer of employment) letter dated 20.10.2021?” - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12701 CMP No. 449 of 2024 8. There is no dispute that the petitioner offered employment to the respondent in their company as an Engineer at Mysore vide Service Agreement (offer of employment) dated 20.10.2021. The respondent was employed as an Engineer on probation for one year and thereafter on regular roll for another four years. The respondent sent a resignation on 09.05.2023 through email to the reporting manager and thereafter did not report to work. The petitioner issued notices on 29.06.2023 and 01.08.2023 calling upon the respondent to report back to work and complete the formalities. The respondent replied to the legal notice vide reply notice dated 16.08.2023. After receipt of the reply notice, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, dated 30.10.2023, seeking approval of the respondent to appoint Sri. M.G. Hiremath, retired Senior Civil Judge, as sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between them. The respondent replied to the said notice vide reply dated 18.11.2023, and denied the said proposal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12701 CMP No. 449 of 2024 9. The petitioner sent a rejoinder to the reply notice dated 12.12.2023, as the dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the respondent in connection with the contract entered between the petitioner and the respondent. I have perused the Service Agreement (offer of employment) letter dated 20.10.2021, where clause 19, reads as follows: “19. Arbitration: Any dispute or difference or claim arising in connection with this contract shall be resolved by reference to arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by Skanray Technologies Pvt. Ltd., at its sole discretion. The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The language of arbitration shall be English. Each of Skanray Technologies Pvt. Ltd. or the employee shall be respectively entitled to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for such interim relief’s as the company or the Employee may in its discretion deem fit. The venue of arbitration shall be at Mysore and the Courts at Mysore shall have exclusive jurisdiction. The governing law shall be the laws of India.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12701 CMP No. 449 of 2024 10. The arbitration clause provides that if any dispute or differences or claim arisen in connection with the contract, shall be resolved by reference to arbitration by a sole Arbitrator appointed by the petitioner at its sole discretion. Admittedly, the dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the respondent. The dispute has to be resolved by referring to the sole Arbitrator. Further, learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to appointment of an Arbitrator. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of clause 19 of the Service Agreement (offer of employment) dated 20.10.2021. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. ii. Sri. Umesh Moolimani, retired District Judge is appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12701 CMP No. 449 of 2024 between the parties to the petition as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. iii. The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bengaluru. The learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the venue of the Arbitration shall be in Bengaluru. The submission is placed on record. The venue of the Arbitration shall be in Bengaluru. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE sks