Karnataka High Court
Arbitration and MediationCivil Procedure and Evidence

A validly invoked arbitration clause warrants appointment of a sole arbitrator.

M/S GOURMETA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs M/S PREMIER KAFE

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 07, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A validly invoked arbitration clause warrants appointment of a sole arbitrator.. M/S GOURMETA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs M/S PREMIER KAFE. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The parties entered into a Franchise Agreement dated 22 February 2025 for operation of a café under a FOCO model.

Source reference: p.2–6

The petitioner alleged that the respondent breached the agreement, including by withholding payments and interfering with the petitioner’s operational role.

Source reference: p.2–6

The agreement’s Clause 20.2 provided for arbitration, with Bengaluru as the seat and venue, and contemplated appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Source reference: p.2–6

After issuing a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner filed this petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

Source reference: p.2–6

The respondent had no objection to appointment and asked that the parties’ contentions be left open

Source reference: p.2–6
02

Issues

1. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes arising under the Franchise Agreement

Source reference: p.5–7

2. Whether the parties’ claims and contentions should be reserved for determination by the arbitral tribunal

Source reference: p.6–7
03

Law Applied

Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provide the basis for court appointment of an arbitrator where the agreed appointment process does not result in appointment.

Source reference: p.2, 4–6

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

Source reference: p.2, 4–6

Clause 20.2 of the Franchise Agreement required unresolved disputes to be referred to arbitration and provided for a mutually appointed sole arbitrator, with recourse to appointment under the Act if the parties failed to agree within 15 days.

Source reference: p.2, 4–6

The Court cited no precedents

Source reference: p.2, 4–6
04

Reasoning

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

Source reference: p.5–7

Given the existence of the clause and the respondent’s lack of objection to appointment, the Court concluded that appointment of a sole arbitrator was warranted.

Source reference: p.5–7

It left the substantive claims and contentions open for determination in arbitration

Source reference: p.5–7
05

Holding

The petition was allowed.

The Court appointed retired District Judge Shri Rajmohan Srivatsava as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, under its rules.

Source reference: p.7–8

All claims and contentions were left open, and the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 11 November 2026 at 11:30 a.m.

Source reference: p.7–8
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 GOURMETA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDvsM/S PREMIER KAFE

Karnataka High Court · October 07, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment