The court affirmed the petitioners’ right to arbitration despite previous court actions, establishing that disputes under the Shareholders' Agreement are arbitrable according to Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

ORDER :

E.S. INDIRESH, J.

These petitions are filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties in terms of clause 17.9 of the Shareholders' Agreement Dated 12^th October, 2020.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Sri. Paaras Pandey and Sri. Erathi Anudeep, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Srikanth V.K, appearing for the petitioners, by referring to clause 17.9 of the Shareholders' Agreement dated 12^th October, 2020 contended that the petitioners have been ousted by majority of the shareholders and therefore, sought for appointment of an Arbitrator as per clause 17.9 of the Shareholders' Agreement dated 12^th October, 2020.

4. Per contra, Sri. V. Sanjay Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 8 in C.M.P No.763 of 2022 and respondent No.3 in C.M.P. Nos.799 of 2022 and 804 of 2022 invited the attention to the statement of objections particularly with regard to various forums in which the petitioners herein have approached and by referring to the paragraphs 44 and 50 of the plaint in Original Suit No.277 of 2021, argued that the said plaint filed by the plaintiffs therein was ordered to be returned by the Competent Court to the plaintiffs therein to present before the appropriate competent Court having jurisdiction as per the order dated 30^th August, 2023.

5. Sri. V. Sanjay Krishna, learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have filed C.P. No.86/BB/2021 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru against the Company and its Directors, challenging the transfer of shares and thereafter, they have sought for withdrawal of the petition with a liberty to file fresh petition and the said aspect was considered by the National Company Law Tribunal as per order dated 17^th April, 2023. Sri. V. Sanjay Krishna, learned counsel by referring to the private complaint filed in P.C.R. No.125/2022 under Section 200 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE before the I Additional JMFC, Anekal, argued that the said proceedings filed by the petitioners was stayed before this Court in Criminal Petition No.5357 of 2022. Further, Sri. V. Sanjay Krishna, learned counsel, by placing the reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUKANYA HOLDINGS (P) LTD. vs. JAYESH H. PANDYA reported in (2003)5 SCC 531 , particularly to paragraphs 16 and 17 of the said judgment, argued that the petitioners are making bifurcation of the cause of action and claiming relief before the different forums on the very same cause of action and therefore, the present petitions are required to be dismissed.

6. Sri. V. Sanjay Krishna, learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIJAY KUMAR GHAI AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS reported in (2022)7 SCC 124 particularly to the paragraph 14 of the judgment and argued that the petitioners have chosen various forums and they are not able to get a relief from the competent forum and therefore, the action of the petitioners indulging in forum shopping is to be deprecated and condemned by looking into their conduct and accordingly, the petitions are required to be dismissed.

7. Sri. V. Sanjay Krishna, learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIRGO INDUSTRIES (ENG.) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. VENTURETEC