Moto Business Service India Private ... vs Sigrid Spectrum Consultants Private ... on 23 March, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Moto Business Service India Private ... vs Sigrid Spectrum Consultants Private ... on 23 March, 2026

Bench: J.K. Maheshwari

                                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                              CIVIL APPEAL NO.               OF 2026
                            (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 38036 of 2025)


                      MOTO BUSINESS SERVICE
                      INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED                         APPELLANT(s)


                                                 VERSUS


                      SIGRID SPECTRUM
                      CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED                   RESPONDENT(s)


                                              O R D E R

1) Despite service of notice, no one is present on behalf of the respondent.

2) Leave granted.

3) Arising out of order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Civil Misc. Petition No. 244 of 2025, whereby rejected the petition of the appellant filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA referred to as ‘1996 Act’), the present appeal has Date: 2026.04.01 18:14:45 IST Reason: been filed.

4) As per the impugned order, the existence of the arbitration clause is not in dispute; however, the High Court has declined to appoint an Arbitrator on the pretext that in the notice dated 03.03.2025, the appellant has not nominated any Arbitrator for the consent of the respondent.

5) Learned counsel for the appellant submits, the notice as referred apparently indicates appointment of the Arbitrator by the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru, which is functioning under the aegis of the High Court of Karnataka. Even after receiving the notice, the respondent has not replied to the same. Therefore, the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre may appoint any Arbitrator and in case of failure of such appointment, the High Court ought to have exercised the discretion under Section 11 of the 1996 Act.

6) After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we find that even after issuance of the notice in this case, the respondent has not appeared and therefore, we have proceeded ex parte as per 2 order dated 23.02.2026. The respondent has neither appeared before the High court nor before this Court. As such, it can safely be held that the respondent is not responding to the notice of the appellant. In such circumstances, the appointment of Arbitrator ought not be declined for the reason as specified in the order by the High Court.

7) Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal and direct that the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru, functioning under the aegis of the High Court of Karnataka shall appoint an Arbitrator as indicated in the notice dated 03.03.2025 by the appellant.

8) We make it clear that prior to the appointment of the Arbitrator, the Director of the Centre shall issue a notice in reference to order passed by this Court to call the respondent for appearance. In case the respondent is not appearing, an Arbitrator be appointed who shall proceed in accordance with law.

9) Accordingly, the civil appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………………………………………………., J.

[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ] …………………………………………………………., J.

[ ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ] New Delhi;

March 23, 2026.





                                                       4
ITEM NO.52                  COURT NO.3               SECTION IV-A

                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 38036/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-11-2025 in CMP No. 244/2025 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru] MOTO BUSINESS SERVICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS SIGRID SPECTRUM CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION) Date : 23-03-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Rajat Joneja, Adv.

Mr. Yash Varma, Adv.

Ms. Himanshi Madan, Adv. Mr. Rajesh P., AOR For Respondent(s) :

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1) Leave granted.

2) The civil appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

            (NIDHI AHUJA)                    (NAND KISHOR)
          DEPUTY REGISTRAR               ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

[Signed order is placed on the file.] 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court - Daily Orders