M/S Kids Clinic India Limited, v. Dr. Nitika Sobti,

NC:(2026:KHC:14794( CMP(No.(536(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(12 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(E.S.INDIRESH( CIVIL(MISC.(PETITION(No.536(OF(2025(( BETWEEN:(( (

M/S,KIDS,CLINIC,INDIA,LIMITED, A,COMPANY,INCORPORATED,UNDER,, THE,PROVISIONS,OF,COMPANIES,ACT,,1956,

HAVING,ITS,REGISTERED,OFFICE,AT,No.,1533,, TH RD 9 ,MAIN,,3 ,BLOCK,,JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560,011.,,

REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,AUTHORISED,SIGNATORY,, SRI.,HANUMANTGOUDA., …PETITIONER,

, (BY,SMT.,ARCHANA,,K.M,,,ADVOCATE), (

AND:( ( DR.,NITIKA,SOBTI,

W/O,KIRIT,SOBTI,, Digitallytisignedtiby LAKSHMINARAYANA AGE,NOT,KNOWN,, MURTHY0RAJASHRI RD Location:0HIGH RESIDING,AT,C13,,3 ,,FLOOR,, COURT0OF KARNATAKA OXFORD,STREET,,ROSEWOOD,CITY,, SECTOR,40,,GURGAON,, HARYANA,-,122,001., …RESPONDENT, , (BY,SRI,RAVI,SHANKAR,R,,ADVOCATE), , THIS, CMP, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 11(6), OF, ARBITRATION,AND,CONCILIATION,ACT,,1996,,,R/W,RULE,2,OF, SCHEME, FOR, APPOINTMENT, OF, ARBITRATOR, BY, KARNATAKA, HIGH, COURT, PRAYING, TO, EXERCISE, THE, POWER, UNDER, SECTION, 11(6), OF, THE, ARBITRATION, AND, CONCILIATION, ACT,,1996,AND,APPOINT,A,SUITABLE,PERSON,AS,ARBITRATOR,

IN PURSUANCE OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT DATED 3.04.2023 AT ANNEXURE - A AND FOR SUCH OTHER ORDERS DIRECTIONS ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

¶1Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶2This Petition is filed seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') based on the agreement for providing professional services dated 03.04.2023 (Annexure – A). It is noted that Clause 18 of the above said agreement provides for resolution of dispute by way of appointment of an Arbitrator under the provisions of the Act.

¶3It is contended by Smt. Archana K.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to Clause 4 of the aforementioned agreement, that respondent

herein was appointed as a consultant in the petitioner's hospital and termination of the said agreement has to be only by way of issuing a six months prior written notice by either of the party. Accordingly she sought for appointment of an Arbitrator as per Clause 18 of the agreement.

¶4Per contra Sri. Ravi Shankar R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed appointment of the Arbitrator and also stated that, as per e-mail dated

21.03.2024 issued by the petitioner - hospital to the respondent (Annexures R1 and R2) a draft agreement was entered into between the parties for certain negotiation as to the service of the respondent with the petitioner-hospital. However, the same was not concluded. Accordingly he submitted that there is no occasion for appointment of the Arbitrator.

¶5In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering Clause 18 of the agreement which provides for appointment of

Arbitrator and also taking into consideration clause 4 of the agreement, I am of the view that, termination of agreement, at any time, has to be by giving six months prior notice by either of the parties. Taking into consideration, that as on today, the agreement dated

03.04.2023 stands, creating rights and liabilities between the petitioner and the respondent, I am of the view that appointment of an Arbitrator is necessitated.

¶6Accordingly, Sri R.M. Vaidya, retired District Judge is appointed as the Arbitrator for resolution of dispute between the parties.

¶7In order to avoid delay in the matter, the parties are directed to appear before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Race Course Road, Bengaluru, on

07.04.2026 at 11.00 a.m. On appearance of the parties, learned Arbitrator is requested to resolve the dispute at the earliest.

¶8The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru and also to Sri. R.M. Vaidya, retired District Judge, forthwith.

¶9All contentions of both the parties are kept open.

¶10Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 Ct.sm