Bombay High Court
Cloud Kitch Private LimitedversusMs Praneetas Kitchen
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed and had been duly invoked, and therefore appointed a sole arbitrator.
Summary
The parties executed a Master Service and Software Agreement containing an arbitration clause. The applicant, Cloud Kitch Private Limited, alleged the respondent, Praneetas Kitchen, failed to pay revenue‑share settlements and invoked arbitration by sending a notice on 25 February 2026. The respondent did not respond, and the applicant filed a Section 11 application seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The court examined whether a valid arbitration agreement existed and whether it had been properly invoked, relying on Supreme Court precedents. Finding the arbitration clause valid and the notice effective, the court appointed Ms Niyomi Jariwala as sole arbitrator and issued procedural directions. All claims and counter‑claims were left open for determination before the tribunal.
Issues considered
- Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties under the Master Service and Software Agreement
- Whether the arbitration clause was validly invoked by the notice dated 25 February 2026
- Whether the court can appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Section 11 application
- Arbitration agreement
- Revenue share dispute
- Appointment of arbitrator
- Master Service Agreement
- Indian arbitration law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.230 OF 2026
Cloud Kitch Private Limited .. Applicant
Vs.
Praneetas Kitchen .. Respondent
Mr. Adnan Noor Hasan (through V.C.), i/by Mr. Atif Shaikh, Advocate for the
Applicant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 3rd September, 2026.
[ THROUGH HYBRID HEARING ]
P.C. :
1. This Section 11 Application is filed seeking appointment of an Arbitrator
in relation to the disputes that have arisen under the Master Service and
Software Agreement dated 25th March 2025 (“Agreement”) executed between
the parties. The arbitration agreement between the parties is recorded at Clause
No.17, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
“17. Governing Law and Arbitration
This Agreement and its performance shall be governed by and
construed in all respects in accordance with the Laws of the
Republic of India. In the event of a dispute or difference, relating
to, arising out of or in connection with any of the matters set out in
1/5
7-ARBAP-230-2026.doc Dixit
this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence,
validity or termination, ("Dispute"), the parties to the Dispute shall
discuss in good faith to resolve the Dispute. If a Party gives the
other Parties notice that a Dispute has arisen and the Parties are
unable to so resolve the Dispute amicably within 30 (thirty)
calendar days, it shall be referred to arbitration.
17.1 Arbitration Procedure
If a Dispute is not resolved within 30 (thirty) days after the service
of a Dispute Notice, whether or not a Dispute Meeting has been
held, any Party to the Dispute shall be entitled to refer the Dispute
to arbitration pursuant to the provisions of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. In this regard, the Parties further agree as
follows:
the Dispute shall be referred to and resolved by the arbitral
tribunal which shall consist of a sole arbitrator, who shall be
mutually appointed by the Parties; failing which, the sole
arbitrator shall be appointed in terms of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996;
the seat and venue of the arbitration shall be Mumbai,
Maharashtra, India and the language of the arbitration shall be
English;
the arbitration award of the sole arbitrator shall be final and
binding on the Parties and shall be enforceable in accordance
with its terms;
the costs of arbitration and the manner of bearing such costs
shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal; and
during the arbitration proceedings, the responsibilities and
obligations of the Parties set out in this Service Agreement
shall subsist and the Parties shall perform their respective
obligations continuously except for that part which is the
subject matter of the arbitration”
2. Mr. Hasan, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that
the parties entered into the Agreement governing operation and revenue sharing
in respect of a Maersk Kitchen facility at Pune. Disputes have arisen between
2/5
7-ARBAP-230-2026.doc Dixit
the parties on account of failure of the Respondent to pay revenue share
settlements payable under the Agreement. The Applicant, through its
Advocate’s notice invoked Arbitration on 25th February 2026. The Respondent
has not replied to the said notice despite receiving the same.
3. Mr. Hasan tenders an affidavit-of-service dated 3rd September 2026 to
demonstrate that the Application has been served on the Respondent. The said
affidavit is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.
4. No one appears for the Respondent despite service. The record
demonstrates that the parties have executed the Agreement. The Applicant has
invoked arbitration by its Advocate’s notice dated 25th February 2026 which
has been received by the Respondent. The acknowledgment receipt is at pages
52 of the paper-book. There is no denial of the arbitration agreement by the
Respondent. At this stage, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interplay
between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
Stamp Act, 1899, in Re (2024) 6 SCC 1 and followed in subsequent judgment in the
case of SBI General Insurance Company Vs. Krish Spinning, (2025) 3 SCC (Civ)
567 that the Section 11 Court ought not to venture beyond the existence of a validly
existing arbitration agreement, this Court is only required to examine whether an
arbitration agreement exists between the parties and whether arbitration has
3/5
7-ARBAP-230-2026.doc Dixit
been validly invoked. I am satisfied that there exists a valid arbitration
agreement in the Agreement and the same has been validly invoked on 25th
February 2026. Hence, this Application is allowed in terms of the following
order:-
[A]. Ms. Niyomi Jariwala, learned Advocate of this Court is
appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the
disputes and differences between the parties arising out of
and in connection with the Master Service and Software
Agreement referred to above. The contact details of Ms.
Niyomi Jariwala, the sole Arbitrator, are as under:
Office Address : Chambers of Adv. Aditya N. Mehta,
4th Floor, Techno Heritage Building,
76 Nagindas Master Road, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001.
Mobile Number : 8976401402
E-mail ID : [email protected]
[B]. A copy of this order will be communicated to the learned
Arbitrator by the Advocate for the Applicant within a
period of one week from the date on which this order is
uploaded on the website of this Court. The Applicant shall
provide the contact and communication particulars of the
parties to the learned Arbitrator along with a copy of this
order;
4/5
7-ARBAP-230-2026.doc Dixit
[C]. The learned Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory
Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with
Section 12(1) of the Act to the Advocate for the Applicant
so as to enable them to file the same in the Registry of this
Court. The Registry of this Court shall retain the said
Statement on the file of this Application and a copy of the
same shall be furnished by the Advocate for the Applicant
to the Respondents;
[D]. The parties shall appear before the learned Arbitrator on
such date either on V.C. mode or at such place as indicated
to obtain appropriate directions with regard to conduct of
the arbitration including fixing schedule for pleadings,
examination of witnesses, schedule of hearings etc.
[E]. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be as per the Fourth
Schedule of the Act read with the Bombay High Court (Fee
Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018.
[F]. All issues, claims and counterclaims are kept open to be
agitated before the Tribunal.
[G]. The arbitration shall be held at Mumbai.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
SNEHA SNEHA
ABHAY
5/5
ABHAY DIXIT
7-ARBAP-230-2026.doc Dixit
DIXIT Date:
2026.09.04
16:49:59
+0530
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.