M/S Kalandri Capital Pvt Ltd vs Empower Engineers Pvt Ltd
2026 Latest Caselaw 2236 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2236 Kant
Judgement Date : 12 March, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Kalandri Capital Pvt Ltd vs Empower Engineers Pvt Ltd on 12 March, 2026

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2026:KHC:14772
                                                        CMP NO.21 OF 2025


                   HC-KAR



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

                      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.21 OF 2025

                   BETWEEN:

                   M/S. KALANDRI CAPITAL PVT. LTD.
                   (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
                   THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 2013)
                   HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
                   NO.1/1, 3RD FLOOR, VINAYAKA TOWERS,
                   1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
                   BENGALURU,
                   KARNATAKA - 560 009.
                   REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
                   MS. TEJASRI THAMMANA.
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SMT. RIDHIMA T., ADVOCATE FOR
                    SRI. THOMAS VELLAPALLY, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by CHAYA S A
Location: HIGH     EMPOWER ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.
COURT OF           A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
KARNATAKA
                   THE LAWS OF INDIA,
                   HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
                   NO.8-3-293/B2/A/270/R/A/1,
                   PLOT NO.270E/A, MCH 985, ROAD
                   NO.10, JUBILEE HILLS,
                   HYDERABAD,
                   TELANGANA - 500 033.
                                                             ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. PULAKESHI A.P., ADVOCATE)
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC:14772
                                            CMP NO.21 OF 2025


HC-KAR



     THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 11(5) AND 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE
ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE DISPUTE THAT HAVE
ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES UNDER THE WORKING
CAPITAL DEMAND LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 20TH DECEMBER,
2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN TERMS OF ARBITRATION
PROVISION CONTAINED IN CLAUSE 22.16 OF THE SAID LOAN
AGREEMENT.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

                        ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner is seeking an appointment

of Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute that arisen

between the parties under the Working Capital Demand Loan

Agreement dated 20th December, 2021 (Annexure-D) in terms

of the arbitration provision contained in Clause 22.16 of the

said Agreement.

2. Heard Smt. Ridhima T., learned counsel on behalf

of Sri. Thomas Velapally, appearing for the petitioner and Sri.

Pulakeshi A.P., learned counsel appearing for he respondent.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

referred to the Working Capital Demand Loan Agreement dated

20th December, 2021 (Annexure-D) entered into between the

NC: 2026:KHC:14772 CMP NO.21 OF 2025

HC-KAR

parties and submitted that the Clause 22.16 of the said

Agreement provides for an appointment of Arbitrator for

resolution of dispute, if any, between the parties as per the

provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Accordingly, she sought for interference of this Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent invited the attention of the Court to Clause 22.15 of

the said Agreement and submits that the only Courts and

Tribunals of competent jurisdiction at Mumbai shall have

exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any proceedings relating

to the Agreement.

5. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of ARIF AZIM COMPANY LIMITED vs.

MICROMAX INFORMATICS FZE reported in (2025) 9 SCC

750 and made a distinction between the seat of arbitration and

venue of arbitration.

6. In the light of submission made by learned counsel

appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, Clause 22.16

of the Working Capital Demand Loan Agreement dated 20th

NC: 2026:KHC:14772 CMP NO.21 OF 2025

HC-KAR

December, 2021 provides for appointment of Arbitrator for

resolution of dispute between the parties, however, Clause

22.15 provides for jurisdiction, which reads as Under:

"22.15. Jurisdiction Subject to the Arbitration clause herein below only the courts and tribunals of competent jurisdiction at Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any proceedings relating to this Agreement."

(emphasis supplied)

7. On perusal of the language employed under Clause

22.15 of the aforesaid Agreement, the same would indicate that

the parties have agreed for only the Courts and Tribunals of

competent jurisdiction at Mumbai, shall have exclusive

jurisdiction with respect to any proceedings relating to the

Agreement. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that

the judgment referred to above by learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand, since, in

the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated a

test relating to 'closest connection test' and as such,

determined the seat of Arbitration by identifying the law in