Karnataka High Court
Century Arcade vs The Nilgiri Dairy Farm Pvt Ltd on 5 December, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:51447
CMP No. 280 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 280 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
CENTURY ARCADE
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP
ACT, 1932,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 10/1,
LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX,
GROUND FLOOR, PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPA HOLDER,
MR. CHETHAN KUMAR. S
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDAN K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed THE NILGIRI DAIRY FARM PVT. LTD.,
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER T
Location: HIGH HE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT,
COURT OF PRESENTLY HAVING ITS REGISTERED
KARNATAKA
OFFICE AT KNOWLEDGE HOUSE,
SHYAM NAGAR, OFF JVLR, JOGESHWARI (EAST),
MUMBAI - 400 060, MAHARASHTRA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONENT HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SEC. 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION
AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO A. APPOINT A SOLE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:51447
CMP No. 280 of 2024
HC-KAR
ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE
PARTIES WHICH ARISEN UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
REGISTERED LEASE DEED DATED 31ST DECEMBER, 2012 (ANNEXURE
G), IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 10.5 OF THE SAME, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties which have arisen under or in connection with the registered Lease Deed dated 31 December, 2012 (Annexure G), in terms of clause 10.5 of the same, in the interest of justice and equity;
b. Award costs of this proceedings; & c. Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner and respondent had entered into a lease deed on 31.12.2012, which is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of Clause 10 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
10. GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION 10.1 This Agreement shall be governed and construed according to the laws of India, and subject to the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:51447 CMP No. 280 of 2024 HC-KAR other provisions of this Clause. The courts in Bangalore shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to determine any disputes arising under or in relation to this Deed.
10.2 Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Deed, the following provisions apply if any dispute or difference arises between the Parties arising out of or relating to the lease of the Schedule 'B' Premises ("Dispute").
10.3 A Dispute will be deemed to arise when one Party serves on the other Party a notice stating the nature of the Dispute ("Notice of Dispute").
10.4 The Parties hereto agree that they will use all reasonable efforts to resolve between themselves, any Disputes through negotiations.
10.5 Any Disputes and differences whatsoever arising under or in connection with this Deed which could not be settled by Parties through negotiations, after the period of fourteen (14) business days from the service of the Notice of Dispute, shall be finally settled by arbitration by a sole arbitrator who would be selected by the Parties by consensus in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and:
a) All proceedings shall be conducted in English and a daily transcript in English shall be prepared;
b) The venue of arbitration shall be in Bangalore, India; and
c) The order of such Arbitral Tribunal shall be final and binding on both the parties.
3. The petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1956 and invoked the arbitration clause on 18.10.2023 by nominating its arbitrator.
4. Though the said notice was served on the respondent, the respondent chose not to reply to the same. It is in -4- NC: 2025:KHC:51447 CMP No. 280 of 2024 HC-KAR that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs:
5. Notice having been issued to the respondent though served, the respondent has again chosen not to be represented in the present matter.
6. A perusal of the lease deed indicates that there is an arbitration clause to resolve the dispute between the parties. The invocation of the arbitration clause having been done properly. The respondent has not responded by either accepting or rejecting the nomination made by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The CMP is allowed.
ii) Sri. M.Ramesh Rao, a retired District Judge is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties under the aegis of the Arbitration Centre attached to this Court.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:51447 CMP No. 280 of 2024 HC-KAR
iii) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre for doing the needful.
iv) Since the order is passed in the presence of both the counsel, they shall appear before the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre without requirement of any notice on 16.12.2025 at 2.30 p.m.
v) All contentions are kept open.
vi) Registry is directed to return the original and/or certified copies, if produced, to the respective parties who have produced it/them by following due procedure.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34