IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

PLIVO INDIA PVT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PLIVO COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.)

7TH FLOOR, INDIQUBE ECO WORLD, CAMPUS 32, RMZ ECOWORLD, BHOGANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. KSHITIJ SHARMA Digitally signed by …APPELLANT NIRMALA DEVI (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH AND:

COURT OF KARNATAKA

1. MR ARVIND ESHWARLAL RESIDING AT 106, RAHEJA MANSION, 13 MILTON STREET, COOKE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560005

2. SHRI. V. JAGANNATHAN, FORMER JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, SOLE ARBITRATOR, ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, BENGALURU (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL) KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHODHAN BABU A.M, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2026 PASSED BY THE LD LXXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT AT BENGALURU (CCH-85) PASSED IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.57/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE B.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act impugning a judgment dated 24.01.2026 [impugned judgment passed by the learned LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-85) [Commercial Court] in Com.A.P.No.57/2025 captioned 'Plivo India Pvt.Ltd., v. Mr.Arvind Eshwarlal & Another'. The appellant had filed the said petition to set aside the arbitral award dated 24.12.2024 [impugned award passed by respondent No. 2 [Arbitral Tribunal].

2. It is stated that respondent No.1 had joined the appellant company as an Associate Director on 27.11.2017 pursuant to the letter of offer dated 16.10.2017. In terms of the said offer, respondent No.1 was employed at an annual remuneration of `78,96,400/-. Respondent No.1 had also signed a Non-Disclosure and a Non-Compete Agreement [NDA] on joining the services of the appellant on 27.11.2017.

3. The appellant claims that respondent No.1 had violated the terms of the employment agreement as well as the NDA and the same gave rise to disputes between the said parties. Since the disputes were covered by an arbitration agreement, the appellant issued a notice dated 27.10.2018 under Section 21 of the A&C Act.

The parties could not concur on the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant filed a petition (Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.171/2020) under Section 11 of the A&C Act before this Court. The said petition was allowed by an order dated 21.07.2022, and the Court appointed respondent No.2, a former judge of this Court, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that had arisen between the parties.

4. The appellant filed a statement of claims on 28.04.2023. Respondent No.1 resisted the claim, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The said contention was accepted by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, and the appellant's claims were, inter alia, rejected on that ground. We consider it apposite to reproduce the relevant extract of the impugned award, which reflects the Arbitral Tribunal's reasoning for accepting the said contention:

"44. From the memo filed by the claimant counsel on 4.12.2024, the date of cause of action is shown as 30.5.2018. The date of invocation of Section 21 notice of arbitration is 27.10.2018. Both parties do not dispute the aforesaid dates. If the limitation is calculated from the notice of arbitration, then 3 years period will