Karnataka High Court
Arbitration and MediationContract Law

Once an arbitration agreement is established, disputed contractual claims are for the arbitrator to decide.

MR.R.SHASHIMOHAN vs MRS. ASHA SATAPATHY

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 24, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Once an arbitration agreement is established, disputed contractual claims are for the arbitrator to decide.. MR.R.SHASHIMOHAN vs MRS. ASHA SATAPATHY. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner and respondents executed a registered partnership deed dated 14 October 2023 for “Deer Creek Collective”; Clause 16 provided for arbitration of disputes concerning the partnership

Source reference: paras. 2–3; pp. 3–4

After disputes arose, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by notice dated 27 May 2025. The respondents denied the allegations and refused to consent to an arbitrator

Source reference: paras. 3–4; pp. 3–4

The petitioner then sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Source reference: p. 2; para. 1
02

Issues

1. Whether disputes arising between the parties were referable to arbitration under Clause 16 of the partnership deed

Source reference: paras. 5–8; pp. 5–6

2. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Act

Source reference: paras. 1, 4, 8; pp. 2, 4, 6
03

Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 11(5) and 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and Clause 16 of the partnership deed.

Source reference: para. 3; p. 4

Clause 16 provided for arbitration of disputes concerning the construction of the deed, the partnership’s business and accounts, and its dissolution or winding up

Source reference: para. 3; p. 4

The Court treated the existence of that clause, its invocation by notice under Section 21, and disputes prima facie related to the partnership deed as sufficient grounds to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11

Source reference: para. 8; p. 6

No judicial precedent was cited.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The respondents argued that the deed contained no promise to acquire 100 acres of land and that no arbitrable dispute had therefore arisen

Source reference: para. 5; p. 5

The Court accepted that the deed did not refer to that alleged promise, but considered the petitioner’s other allegations prima facie related to the partnership deed

Source reference: paras. 6–7; pp. 5–6

It left the parties’ contentions open for determination by the arbitrator, reasoning that they could not be decided at the Section 11 stage

Source reference: para. 7; p. 6

The order contains an inconsistency: it records that the respondents refused consent to an arbitrator, but later states that both parties agreed to appoint a sole arbitrator

Source reference: paras. 4, 8; pp. 4, 6
05

Holding

The petition was allowed, and Shri Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya, retired District Judge, was appointed sole arbitrator to decide the disputes at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru

All claims and contentions were left open, and the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 23 October 2026 at 11:30 a.m.

Source reference: para. 9(c), (f); p. 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

MR.R.SHASHIMOHANvsMRS. ASHA SATAPATHY

Karnataka High Court · September 24, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment