Karnataka High Court
CMP/97/2026 of M/S EMJAY ENGINEERING COMPANY AND Vs M/S. CONFIDENT PROJECT (INDIA) LTD on 6 October 2026
2026:KHC:55751
CNR: KAHC010144332026 NC: 2026:KHC:55751 CMP No. 97 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 97 OF 2026 BETWEEN: M/S EMJAY ENGINEERING COMPANY AND M/S JAYEM
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 97 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
M/S EMJAY ENGINEERING COMPANY AND
M/S JAYEM ENGINEERING COMPANY
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.70, 1ST CROSS 2ND A MAIN
DOMLUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 071.
REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR/CEO
SHRI. PJ JACOB
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O SHRI CHACKO OUSEPH.
.…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVEENDRAN P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. CONFIDENT PROJECT (INDIA) LTD
(A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT 1956)
REGD. OFFICE AT NO.574
PARK HOUSE, 80 FEET ROAD
8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE – 560095
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. KRISHIKA G VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY., ADVOCATE)
HC-KAR
Page 1 of 3
THIS
CMP
IS
FILED
UNDER
SECTION
11(5)
OF
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT PRAYING TO APPOINT
SHRI. V.N. RAVINDRA, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(RETD), WHO IS IN THE PANEL OF THE ARBITRATORS OR ANY
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE PANEL OF ARBITRATORS AS
THE SOLE ARBITRATOR ASSISTED BY PETITIONER AND
OFFICER OF RESPONDENT IN ADJUDICATING THE DISPUTE
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT
TO THE CONTRACTUAL WORKS ENTRUSTED BY RESPONDENT
AS
PER
CLAUSE
NO.
Page 2 of 3
UNDER
AGREEMENT
DATED
23.09.2008 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 15.11.2007
ENTERED INTO WITH M/S. JAYEM ENGINEERING COMPANY
DATED 23.09.2008 IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection, stating that, the petitioner is invoking the arbitration clause in relation to two different agreements which are not interconnected and it has not addressed any separate notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to
HC-KAR
invoke the appropriate arbitration clause, in accordance with law.
3. The memo is taken on record.
4. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause, in accordance with law.
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE
CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 80
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…