Karnataka High Court
Arbitration and MediationContract Law

A valid arbitration clause and Section 21 invocation warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator.

M/S. URBAN MOTO vs HEXA-GT

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A valid arbitration clause and Section 21 invocation warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator.. M/S. URBAN MOTO vs HEXA-GT. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner partnership firm entered into a Distribution Agreement dated 14 April 2021 with respondent No. 1, a proprietorship firm, for distribution of its products.

Source reference: no citation

Alleging that some products supplied were defective, the petitioners sought their return and a refund by legal notice dated 28 June 2024.

Source reference: p. 3

After disputes arose, the petitioners invoked the agreement’s arbitration clause by notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, dated 18 December 2024.

Source reference: p. 4–5

The respondents did not respond to that notice.

Source reference: p. 4–5

The petitioners then filed this petition under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator; the respondents stated that they had no objection to the appointment.

Source reference: p. 4–5
02

Issues

1. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate the disputes arising from the Distribution Agreement.

Source reference: p. 5–6
03

Law Applied

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides for court intervention in the appointment of an arbitrator in the circumstances specified by that provision.

Source reference: p. 4–5

Section 21 addresses commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Source reference: p. 4–5

Clause 14 of the Distribution Agreement required unresolved disputes to be referred to arbitration and specified Bengaluru as the place of arbitration.

Source reference: p. 4–5
04

Reasoning

The Court found that the Distribution Agreement contained an arbitration clause covering disputes between the parties and that the petitioners had invoked it by issuing a Section 21 notice.

Source reference: p. 4–6

The respondents’ failure to respond, together with their counsel’s stated lack of objection to appointment, supported the need to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes.

Source reference: p. 4–6

The Court therefore allowed the Section 11(6) petition without deciding the parties’ underlying claims or contentions.

Source reference: p. 6
05

Holding

The Court allowed the petition and appointed Mr. D. Nagaraj, Advocate, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, under that Centre’s rules.

All claims and contentions were left open.

Source reference: p. 6–7

The parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 27 October 2026 at 11:30 a.m.; the Registry was also directed to communicate the order and return original documents after retaining photocopies.

Source reference: p. 6–7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

M/S. URBAN MOTOvsHEXA-GT

Karnataka High Court · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment