M/S Future Minds v. M/S Jaihind Tubes Private Limited

ORDER [A] The petition is allowed, Smt. Rahat Afshan H N, a retired Senior Civil Judge, is appointed as

the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and respondents and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru.

[B] The Registry is directed to communicate this order [through e-mail] to Arbitration Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru Smt. Rahat Afshan H N, a retired Senior Civil Judge, Address: No. B-106, Vaishnavi Oasis, Near Tippu Circle, J. P. Nagar 9th Phase, Bengaluru-560 [e-mail ID:

rahat.afshan@gmail.com] as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

[C] The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the addresses of the parties as mentioned in the cause title are also the current addresses of the parties is taken on record, and the parties are directed to appear before Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic International], Bengaluru, on

05.10.2026 at

11.30 am.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB

e -e1e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:46227( CMP(No.(699(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010782342025(e ( e ( A e e INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA e THDATEDATHISATHEA27 ADAYAOFAAUGUST,A2026A e BEFOREA e THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA e CIVILAMISC.APETITIONANO.A699AOFA2025A e BETWEEN:AA e A - M/S-FUTURE-MINDS-e HAVING-ITS-REGISTERED-OFFICE-AT- e BOATMAN-1102,-- SJR-WATER-MARK-APARTMENT,-e SHUBH-ENCLAVE,-- e STHARLUR-1 -MAIN-ROAD,-- AMBALIPURA-KASAVANAHALLI,--e BENGALURU-URBAN-- e KARNATAKA---560102- REPRESENTED-BY-ITS-- e AUTHORISED-SIGNATORY- e MR.-AMIT-KAPOOR- …PETITIONER- eDigitally signed by (BY-SRI.-ANISH-P-BHOJANI.,-ADVOCATE)- VANAMALA N AND:Ae Location: A HIGH 1.- M/S-JAIHIND-TUBES-PRIVATE-LIMITED- COURT OF 133(1)A,-JAIHIND-TUBES--KARNATAKA PRIVATE-LIMITED,- NH-66,-ASPEEN-SOUTH-GATE,-- HEJAMADY,-UDUPI,-- KARNATAKA-–-574103- - 2.- MR.-MAHENDRA-KUMAR-JAIN- DIRECTOR,-- M/S-JAIHIND-TUBES-PRIVATE-LIMITED,- e e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:46227( CMP(No.(699(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010782342025( ( ( 133(1)A,-JAIHIND-TUBES-- PRIVATE-LIMITED,- NH-66,-ASPEEN-SOUTH-GATE,-- HEJAMADY-UDUPI,-- KARNATAKA-–-574103- - 3.- MR.-DIVYAKUMAR-JAIN- DIRECTOR,-- M/S-JAIHIND-TUBES-PRIVATE-LIMITED,- 133(1)A,-JAIHIND-TUBES-- PRIVATE-LIMITED,- NH-66,-ASPEEN-SOUTH-GATE,-- HEJAMADY,-UDUPI,-- KARNATAKA-–-574103- - 4.- MR-RAHUL-JAIN- DIRECTOR,-- M/S-JAIHIND-TUBES-PRIVATE-LIMITED,- 133(1)A,-JAIHIND-TUBES-- PRIVATE-LIMITED,- NH-66,-ASPEEN-SOUTH-GATE,-- HEJAMADY-UDUPI,-- KARNATAKA---574103- …RESPONDENTS- (BY-SRI.-VARUN-S.,-ADVOCATE-FOR-R1-–-R4)- THIS- CMP- IS- FILED- U/S.- 11(5)- OF- THE- ARBITRATION- AND- CONCILIATION- ACT- 1996- PRAYING- TO- APPOINT- AND- CONFIRM- MR.- MITHUN- GERAHALLI,- ADVOCATE,- AS- THE- SOLE- ARBITRATOR- TO- ADJUDICATE- THE- DISPUTES- ARISING- BETWEEN- THE- RESPONDENTS- UNDER- CLAUSE- 15- OF- THE- MOU- DATED:-01.01.2025-(AS-PER-ANNEXURE-–-D)-- - THIS- PETITION,- COMING- ON- FOR- ADMISSION,- THIS-DAY,-ORDER-WAS-MADE-THEREIN-AS-UNDER:- e CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner relies upon the Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.01.2025 which has the agreement for arbitration for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, and the petitioner has filed this petition after causing Legal Notice dated 23.09.2025 inviting the respondents' concurrence for the appointment of its nominee. It is not in dispute that the first respondent has caused a reply on 17.10.2025 denying liability but asserting that its nominee must be appointed as a sole arbitrator. The question for consideration is whether this Court must appoint a sole arbitrator choosing between the two nominees while examining whether the arbitration must be just between the petitioner and the first respondent or between the petitioner and all the respondents. Mr. Varun S., the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the Memorandum of Understanding is between the petitioner and the first respondent alone and therefore, any arbitration must be between these parties. However, Mr. Anish P. Bhojani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the first respondent is an incorporated entity which is represented by its Directors [the second to fourth respondents]. This undisputed fact persuades this Court to opine that there must be an arbitration for resolution of dispute amongst not just the petitioner and the first respondent but even the other respondents and that a third arbitrator must be appointed. In the light of the afore, the following. order