M/S KRISHNA CREATIONS v. M/S. JAGADEESH FILMS

(BY SRI. RAGHUNATHA K., ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. MR. VIJAY KUMAR B.R. S/O RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 632, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40010 RP No. 418 of 2025 HC-KAR HOSKEREHALLI BENGALURU - 560085. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. YUKTHA ANIL, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2025 PASSED IN CMP NO.179/2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT WHEREBY APPOINTING SOLE ARBITRATOR AND THEREBY DISMISS THE CMP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER

#1. This Review Petition is filed seeking review of the order of this Court, dated 02.09.2025 passed in CMP No.179/2025.

#2. Heard Sri. Raghunatha K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S. Sreevatsa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

#3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent herein got the order of appointment of Arbitrator by playing fraud against the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40010 RP No. 418 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner herein, despite the respondent has approached the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (for short, KFCC) (Annexure-B) as per Clause 4.2 of the Cinema Director - Lead Actor Agreement dated 04.02.2022 (Annexure-A). He further contended by referring to the petition preferred by the respondent to KFCC as per Annexure-F, seeking non furnishing of accounts as per agreement dated 04.02.2022 and in furtherance of the same, the petitioner herein received notice and has replied to the KFCC as per Annexure-G to the petition. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the respondent herein has to comply with the conditions stipulated in Clause 4.2 of the Agreement dated

04.02.2022, in as much as, in the event of dispute between the parties, same has to be resolved through mediation by referring to KFCC and thereafter, in the event, if such mediation fails, it is open for the parties to approach the competent Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

#1996. In this regard, in view of the fraud being played by the respondent herein, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 21.01.2025 in the case of VIPIN KUMAR Vs. JAYDEEP & OTHERS in SLP (C) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40010 RP No. 418 of 2025 HC-KAR No.16423/2021 and the Judgment of this Court dated

29.11.2019 in MFA No.7883/2019, and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

#4. Per contra, Sri Sreevatsa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent invited the attention of the Court to the language employed in Clause 4.2 of the agreement dated

04.02.2022 and further submitted that the said Clause 4.2 provides for mediation between the parties referred to KFCC, however, it is also open for the parties to approach the competent Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute if any as per Annexure-A, under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He further submitted that, the respondent is of the opinion that the KFCC is not independent and would not act impartially. Accordingly, he submitted that, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

#5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that this Court, by Order dated 02.09.2025 in CMP No.179/2025, allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein under - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40010 RP No. 418 of 2025 HC-KAR S.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of Clause 4.2 of the Agreement dated

04.02.2022 (Annexure-A).

#6. The language employed in Clause 4.2 of Annexure-A reads as under: "4.2. In the event of any dispute amongst the Parties which cannot be resolved or settled through mediations between Parties referred to Karnataka Cinema Chamber of Commerce, it shall be referred to be resolved through arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for the time being in force, which provisions are deemed to be incorporated by reference into this clause. For the purpose of such arbitration, there shall be one (1) arbitrator, jointly appointed by the Parties. All arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language and the place of such arbitration proceedings shall be in Bengaluru. The arbitral award shall be final and binding on the Parties."

#7. Perusal of the same would indicate that the said Clause

4.2 provides for two avenues for the parties for resolution of the dispute if any under the circumstances, as set out in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40010 RP No. 418 of 2025 HC-KAR Annexure-A to the writ petition. It is open for the parties to approach the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce for mediation and also alternatively, it is open for the parties to avail the remedy under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In that view of the matter, though the respondent herein has approached the KFCC as per Annexure-F seeking non furnishing of accounts as per the agreement dated

04.02.2022, and further the mediation is being taken up by the KFCC, however the respondent feels that the KFCC is incompetent as no impartial proceedings will be done in the mediation before KFCC and the same would not come in the way of approaching the learned Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

#8. It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that the resolution of dispute is required to be made by an independent and impartial Arbitrator and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel and therefore, I do not find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40010 RP No. 418 of 2025 HC-KAR

#9. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the Judgment referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in MFA No.7883/2011 dated 29.11.2019 is not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of Clause 4.2 provided in the Agreement at Annexure-A and that apart, if at all any fraud is being alleged by the petitioners herein, ultimately it is for the learned Arbitrator to resolve the dispute, in accordance with law. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIPIN KUMAR (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

#10. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR RAWAT AND OTHERS reported in (2020) SCC OnLine SC 896. The Review Petition is accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4