Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 8537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S. Indiresh, J
SIMPLIWORK OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
CAMPARI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 573 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prashanth V.G.
For the Respondents: Dhananjay Joshi, M.G. Kumar
Where a contract specifies a pre-arbitration procedure, such as mutual negotiation, as a condition precedent for invoking the arbitration clause, such procedure must be strictly complied with before seeking the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Service Agreement dated 13.03.2023. The court observed that Clause-17(b) of the said agreement mandated that parties first endeavour to resolve disputes through mutual discussion and negotiation amicably for a period of 30 days before invoking arbitration. The primary issue was whether the appointment of an arbitrator could be sought without complying with the pre-arbitration negotiation requirement. The court held that where an agreed procedure of dispute resolution is made a condition precedent for invoking the arbitration clause, the same is required to be followed. It was found that the parties had not engaged in the required mutual discussions. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties argue whether the failure to engage in mandatory pre-arbitration negotiations renders a section 11 petition premature. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contractual clauses requiring mutual negotiation as a condition precedent for arbitration are binding and must be followed. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. failure to comply with a mandatory pre-arbitration negotiation clause justifies the dismissal of a petition for the appointment of an arbitrator. (Para 7 , 8) |
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT MR.PRADEEP NAIK, ADVOCATE, PARTNER AT KEYSTONE PARTNERS, BANGALORE, AS HAD BEEN NOMINATED BY THE PETITIONER IN ITS NOTICE DATED 11.10.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F OR ANY SUCH OTHER SUITABLE INDIVIDUAL AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED 13.03.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDEN (ARBITRATION CLAUSE AT PAGE NO.29, SERIAL NOS.17 & 18 OF THE AGREEMENT) AT CLAUSE-18.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. Sri. Prashanth V.G., learned counsel appearing for petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Clause-17 of the Service Agreement dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure-A) entered into between the petitioner and the respondent and further submitted that the appointment of Arbitrator is necessitated for resolution of the dispute concerned and in this regard, it is argued that, an independent Arbitrator be appointed for the same.
3. Per contra, Sri. Dhananjay Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. M.G. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent invited the attention of the Court to clause-17(b) of the Service Agreement which sets out condition precedent for appointing an Arbitrator under of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') and in this regard it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that there must be a mutual discussion and negotiation between the parties prior to appointment of Arbitrator. As no such event has taken place between the petitioner and the respondent, the appointment of an Arbitrator at this juncture is premature.
4. In support of his argument learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sobha Limited vs. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya Krishna Properties Pvt. Ltd., and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online KAR 1708 and submitted that, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is relevant to extract Clause-17(b) which reads as under:
"17 ……
a. ……
b. In the event any dispute, claim or controversy arises under or relating to this Agreement, including without limitation any dispute between the Parties, the Parties shall endeavour to resolve dispute through mutual discussion and negotiation amicably. In case of a failure by the Parties to resolve the dispute amicably within 30(Thirty) days from the date on which such dispute arose, such dispute shall be resolved by a sole arbitrator who shall be mutually appointed by the Parties. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended from time to time). Any arbitration award by the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the Parties and shall be enforceable by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The seat of arbitration shall be Bengaluru, Karnataka. The proceedings of arbitration will be in the English language."
(emphasis supplied)
6. On careful perusal of Clause-17(b) of the Service Agreement dated 13.03.2023, which provides for mutual discussion and negotiation between the parties before seeking the appointment of the Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Con
