Karnataka High Court
Sanjay Marketing And Publicity ... vs Karnataka State Cricket Association on 11 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45759
CMP No. 380 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.380 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SANJAY MARKETING AND PUBLICITY SERVICES
A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM,
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.21,
1ST FLOOR, 36TH CROSS,
17TH MAIN, 4TH T BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. REVANNA NAGARAJ
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
MR. DARSHAN NAGARAJ.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
ARUNKUMAR M S
Location: HIGH
(BY SRI. PIYUSH KUMAR JAIN D., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER
THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT, 1960.
M. CHINNA SWAMY STADIUM,
CUBBON ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45759
CMP No. 380 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAVI SHANKAR R., ADVOCATE)
**************
THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER 11(6) FOR APPOINTMENT OF
ARBITRATOR UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR UNDER
GENERAL CONDITION NO.12 OF THE CONDITIONS OF
CONTRACT VOLUME 1 (ANNUEXURE - J) TO ADJUDICATE THE
DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT
IN THE INTEREST OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND EXPEDITIOUS
RESOLUTION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CONSTITUTE A THREE
MEMBER ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE
PETITIONER'S NOMINATION MADE IN THE ARBITRATION
NOTICE DATED APRIL 12, 2025.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45759
CMP No. 380 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. In this petition, petitioner has sought for appointment of
an Arbitrator as per condition 12 of the conditions of Contract -
Volume I as per the Contract dated 25.10.2021 (referred to in
Annexure - J).
3. Sri. Piyush Kumar Jain D., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has participated in
the tender for proposed interior lighting, soft furnishing and
allied works of the respondent as per Annexure-J. As per
Clause 12 of General Conditions at Volume I of the Contract at
Annexure-J, resolution of dispute has to be made by an
Arbitrator and therefore he refers to the contract agreement
dated 25.10.2021(Annexure-C), particularly mentioning about
Clause 6 of Annexure-C and submitted that it is imperative for
this Court to appoint the Arbitrator for resolution of dispute
between the parties concerned.
NC: 2025:KHC:45759
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, Sri. B.K. Sampath Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Ravi Shankar R., learned
counsel for the respondent, referred to Clause 12 in the tender
document produced at Annexure-J and further Clause 27 of
Annexure-C which provides for settlement of dispute and
submitted that the petitioner has to exhaust the remedy
available under Clause 27 of the Contract agreement at
Annexure-C and therefore, the provision provided at Clause 12
of the tender document at Annexure-J cannot be made to give
way for appointment of Arbitrator and in this regard, he refers
to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. ZILLION INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE
LIMTED reported in (2024) 7 SCC 174, particularly with
reference to Para 16 and argued that unless there is a specific
clause provided for appointment of Arbitrator in the contract
agreement, the provision under S.11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act cannot be applied by this Court to appoint an
Arbitrator for resolution of dispute and accordingly, sought for
dismissal of the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:45759
HC-KAR
5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that
respondent has invited application / offered for participation by
respective agencies for proposed interior lighting, soft
furnishing and allied works and therefore the Tender document
produced at Annexure-J to the petition. Clause 12 of the
Annexure-J provides for settlement of dispute by an Arbitrator.
It is also pertinent to mention here that pursuant to the
conclusion of the Tender process, the petitioner being a
successful bidder, has entered into a contract agreement dated
25.10.2011 (Annexure-C), with the respondent.
6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully examined
Clause 6 of the contract agreement dated 25.10.2011
(Annexure-C), wherein, though it stipulates about the Tender
document and such other documents referred to therein,
however, specifically it is stated that Clause 27 provides for
resolution of dispute between the parties arising out of the
contract agreement dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure-C). In that
view of the matter, it is for the petitioner to exhaust the
NC: 2025:KHC:45759
HC-KAR
remedy provided under Clause 27 of Annexure-C in so far as
resolution of dispute is concerned. It is also to be noted that,
there is no specific clause provided in the contract agreement
dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure-C) for resolution of dispute by an
Arbitrator under S.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996. In that view of the matter, considering the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, wherein it is
stated that unless there is specific clause which provides for
resolution of dispute by an Arbitrator, Arbitrator cannot be
appointed. Therefore, I am of the view that, the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted. Accordingly, I do not find any acceptable ground to
interfere in this petition.
7. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
sac
