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. 3–4After 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. 3–4The petitioner then sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Source reference: p. 2; para. 1Issues
1. Whether disputes arising between the parties were referable to arbitration under Clause 16 of the partnership deed
Source reference: paras. 5–8; pp. 5–62. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Act
Source reference: paras. 1, 4, 8; pp. 2, 4, 6Law 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. 4Clause 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. 4The 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. 6No judicial precedent was cited.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
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. 5The 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. 5–6It 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. 6The 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, 6Holding
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. 7Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962
Original Court PDF
MR.R.SHASHIMOHANvsMRS. ASHA SATAPATHY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
