Karnataka High Court
Smt. D. R Lakshmidevamma vs Light Square Designs Private Limited on 31 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4556
CMP No. 391 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.391 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. D.R LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O LATE SRI D.NARASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/AT NO.1/62, STATION ROAD
YARRAMUKKAPALLI (P.O)
KADAPA
ANDHRA PRADESH-516004
2. MR.D.RAGHAVA REDDY
S/O LATE SRI D NARASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.1/62, STATION ROAD
YARRAMUKKAPALLI (PO)
KADAPA
ANDHRA PRADESH-516004
Digitally signed by
AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH 3. MR.D SREEDHAR REDDY
COURT OF
KARNATKA S/O LATE SRI D NARASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT PLOT NO.43
BNR COLONY
ROAD NO.14, BANJARA HILLS
HYDERABAD
TELANGANA-500034
4. SMT.D.MOHINI
W/O SRI.D.RAGHAVA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4556
CMP No. 391 of 2024
R/AT NO.1/62, STATION ROAD
YARRAMUKKAPALLI P.O.,
KADAPA
ANDHRA PRADESH-516004
5. SMT. D.SUPRAJA
W/O LATE D.RAVINDRANATH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.1-95(1), Y.S.GEORGE REDDY STREET
R.S.ROAD, KAPADA
ANDHRA PRADESH-516004
6. SMT.D.SIREESHA REDDY
W/O SRI D.SREEDHAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT PLOT NO.43, BNR COLONY
ROAD NO.14
BANJARA HILLS
HYDERABAD
TELANGANA-500034
7. MR.D.VARUN REDDY
S/O LATE D.RAVINDRANATH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.1-95(1), Y.S.GEORGE REDDY STREET
R.S.ROAD, KAPADA
ANDHRA PRADESH-516004
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED
BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
PETITIONER NO.3 - MR.D.SREEDHAR REDDY
S/O LATE SRI D NARASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT PLOT NO.43
BNR COLONY, ROAD NO.14
BANJARA HILLS
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500034
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.GIRIDHAR S V, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4556
CMP No. 391 of 2024
AND:
LIGHT SQUARE DESIGNS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.84
ST. HOUSE, RICHMOND ROAD
BENGALURU-560025
AND ALSO BRANCH AT
DNR TOWERS, NO.275
SITUATED IN AMAR JYOTHI
H.B.C.S. LAYOUT
DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560011.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MRS.PREMA LATHA
W/O SHRI YASHAWANTH MEHTA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.Y.KIRAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF
THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ASHOK B HINCHINGERI
AS THE ARBITRATOR FOR THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE
CLAUSE 21 OF THE DEED OF LEASE EXECUTED ON 15.03.2017 AS
AT ANNEXURE-A TO ENTER UPON REFERENCE AND TO
ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE
RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF THE NOTICE OF THE DEMAND DATED
20.05.2024 AS AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:4556
CMP No. 391 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section
11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(for short '1996 Act') seeking to appoint a sole Arbitrator
in terms of Arbitration Clause 21 of the Lease Deed dated
15.03.2017 as per Annexure-A to resolve the dispute
between the petitioners and respondent.
2. After issuance of notice to the respondent, the
respondent has engaged a counsel and statement of
objection is filed.
3. The petitioners and the respondent entered into a
Lease Agreement in respect of the schedule property. The
respondent has defaulted in payment of the lease rentals
w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The total rent due for the period from
01.04.2021 to 31.05.2024 is Rs.2,28,54,799/- and as
against the same, the respondent has affected payment of
a sum of Rs.1,48,19,261/- only and consequently, the
NC: 2025:KHC:4556
respondent has defaulted in payment and are in arrears of
rent of Rs.80,35,538/- as of the 31.05.2024.
4. The petitioners are before this Court on the
strength of the Lease Deed dated 15.03.2017. The
petitioners by invoking Clause-21 of the Lease Deed have
issued a notice thereby terminating the tenancy dated
20.05.2024. The petitioners allege that tenancy of the
respondent stands terminated on account of non-payment
of arrears of rent or on the failure to quit and deliver the
vacant possession of the schedule property. The
petitioners while invoking Clause-21 have issued a notice
thereby suggesting to nominate the Arbitrator to resolve
the dispute arising out of the terms and conditions of the
Lease Deed. Since there was no reply and compliance, the
petitioners are before this Court seeking appointment of
the sole Arbitrator.
5. The respondents have raised a preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the present petition by
contending that the Lease Deed explicitly stipulates
NC: 2025:KHC:4556
Hyderabad as the venue for arbitration. Relying on this
contractual provision, the respondent argues that this
Court lacks the necessary territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the petition filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966. It is their
contention that since the parties have contractually agreed
upon Hyderabad as the designated venue for arbitration,
any application seeking the appointment of an arbitrator
must be filed before the competent court having
jurisdiction over Hyderabad, and not before this Court. The
respondent asserts that party autonomy is a fundamental
principle of arbitration law, and once the parties have
chosen a particular venue for arbitration, the courts at that
place alone would have jurisdiction over any proceedings
arising out of the arbitration agreement. Consequently, it
is urged that the present petition be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
6. The petitioners, however, have strongly opposed
the respondent's objection by relying on the judgment of a
NC: 2025:KHC:4556
Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE1. The
petitioners contend that, as per the principles laid down in
the said judgment, jurisdiction cannot be determined
merely by the venue mentioned in the arbitration
agreement, but must also take into account other relevant
factors such as the location of the subject matter of the
dispute and the residence of the parties. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners have pointed out that
the property in question, which is the subject of the Lease
Deed, is situated in Bengaluru. Furthermore, the
respondent is a permanent resident of Bengaluru, and the
execution of the Lease Deed also took place in Bengaluru.
Given these circumstances, it is argued that this Court has
jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as Bengaluru has a
significant and substantial connection with the dispute.
The petitioners thus submit that the respondents'
jurisdictional objection is misconceived and ought to be
2024 SCC Online SC 3212
NC: 2025:KHC:4556
overruled. Applying the principles enunciated in Arif Azim
Co. Ltd. (cited supra) and considering the fact that the
cause of action has primarily arisen in Bengaluru, the
petitioners assert that this Court is the appropriate forum
for adjudicating the present matter. Therefore, they urge
that the prayer sought in the petition be granted.
7. Having given anxious consideration to the legal
principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is
evident that the ratio laid down in the judgment of the
Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE (cited
supra) is directly applicable to the present case. In the
said judgment, the Hon'ble Court reiterated that when an
agreement containing an arbitration clause explicitly
stipulates a designated place for dispute resolution, the
jurisdiction of the Courts at the chosen venue gains
precedence, unless compelling reasons indicate otherwise.
The Court further emphasized that where the agreement
between the parties provides for arbitration, judicial
NC: 2025:KHC:4556
intervention should be minimal, ensuring that the
arbitration mechanism agreed upon by the parties is given
full effect.
8. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that
the property in question, which is governed by the Lease
Deed, contains an arbitration clause for dispute resolution
between the Landlord and the Tenant. Additionally, it is an
undisputed position that the Respondent/Tenant resides in
Bengaluru and the respondent is in possession of the
leased premises, which also falls within the jurisdiction of
Bengaluru. The guiding principles laid down in
Arif Azim Co. Ltd. (cited supra) decisively affirm that
where an arbitration agreement exists, and where two or
more possible places are designated in the arbitration
agreement either expressly or impliedly, equally appear to
be the seat of arbitration, then in such cases, the conflict
may be resolved through the Doctrine of Forum Non
Conveniens and the seat be then determined based on
which one of the possible places will be most appropriate
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4556
forum keeping in mind the nature of agreement, the
dispute at hand. Given the fact that lease premises is
situated at Bengaluru, the lease deed was executed at
Bengaluru and the respondent apart from being in
possession of leased premises is also resident of
Bengaluru.
9. Therefore, applying the principles enunciated
in Arif Azim Co. Ltd., (cited supra) this Court finds no
merit in the objections raised by the respondent. The
petitioners have duly satisfied the requirements under
Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
and consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to
uphold the arbitration clause and facilitate the
appointment of an arbitrator in Bengaluru as per the
agreement between the parties. Accordingly, the
objections raised by the respondent stand overruled.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following;
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4556
ORDER
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
allowed, appointing Sri.Justice N.Kumar,
retired and Former Judge of this Court, as
the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute
between the petitioners and respondent in
terms of the Clause No.21 of the Lease
Deed dated 15.03.2017 (Annexure-A) to
the petition.
(ii) All contentions are kept open for
adjudication in the arbitration proceedings.
(iii) The Office is directed to communicate this
order to the Arbitration and Conciliation
Centre and Sri.Justice N.Kumar, retired and
Former Judge of this Court, as required
under the Arbitration and Conciliation
Centre Rules, 2012.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
