SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39952

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
MR. K. S. SUNIL GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
RADOME TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
CMP 291/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 291 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

MR. K. S. SUNIL GUPTA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SON OF SRI. SRINIVASA GUPTA, S-711, SOUTH BLOCK, MANIPAL CENTER, DICKINSON ROAD, OFF. M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALA NIKIT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. RADOME TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER Digitally signed THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT Location: HIGH NO. 207, 1ST FLOOR, JAYA NIVAS, COURT OF KARNATAKA PADUKA MANDIRA ROAD, NEAR BRIGADE 7 GARDENS, BHBCS, BENGALURU - 560 061, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. NAGENDRA PRASAD KUMBLE.

2. MR. NAGENDRA PRASAD KUMBLE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SON OF SRI. MANJUNATH KUMBLE RAMASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO. 1178, PRATHAMA, 30TH MAIN ROAD, POORNA PRAJNA LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

3. MR. SUMUKHA C KUMBLE AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SON OF SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR KUMBLE, RESIDING AT NO. 207, BRUNDHAVAN RESIDENCY, GOVARDHAN GARDEN, J.C. INDUSTRIAL AREA, YELACHANAHALLI POST, J. P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

4. MRS. AMRUTHA CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR KUMBLE, RESIDING AT NO. 207, BRUNDHAVAN RESIDENCY, GOVARDHAN GARDEN, J.C. INDUSTRIAL AREA, YELACHANAHALLI POST, J. P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

5. MRS. S. V. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. MANJUNATH K. R., RESIDING AT NO. 1120, PRATHAMA 30TH MAIN, POORNAPRAGNA LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAYANTANI RAKSHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND ALSO R3 TO R5)

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6)

OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT MR. V.V. ANGADI, FORMER PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR AND THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL), KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU OF THE CLAUSE 21 OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIPTION AND SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT DATED 09/06/2022 AT ANNEXURE A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 relief:

"Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint Mr. V. V. Angadi, Former Principal District Judge as the Sole Arbitrator and the matter be referred to the Arbitration & Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru of the Clause 21 of the Share Subscription and Shareholders' Agreement dated

09/06/2022 at Annexure A."

2. The petitioner and the respondents had entered into a Shared Subscription and Shareholders' Agreement on 09.06.2022, which is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of clause 21.2, which is reproduced hereunder:

21.2 Arbitration (a) If any disputes, controversies or claims arise between the parties out of, or in connection with, or under this Agreement, including in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement (a Dispute), a Party shall provide written notice (Dispute Notice) to the other Party that such dispute has arisen, and thereafter the parties shall endeavour to settle such Dispute(s) amicably within

10 (ten) days of the service of the Dispute Notice."

3. There being a certain dispute between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and issued a notice on 24.04.2024, nominating its arbitrator. The said notice having been served on the respondents, the respondents replied on 04.06.2024, denying the contents of the notice. The respondents replied on 04.06.2024 stating that the notice had been issued in contravention of the arbitration clause. Hence, the petitioner issued one more notice on 13.06.2024 stating that since the dispute had remained unresolved, the petitioner nominated its nominee. Despite service

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top