- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10961 CMP No. 49 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 49 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M./S ELEGANT PROPERTIES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, 'ELEGANT DESIRE', COLES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU 560 005. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. B. RAJASHEKHAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. NASREEN JAN WIFE OF LATE C.J. ABDUL KAREEM, RESIDING AT NO. 106/2 KOGILU LAYOUT, BELLAHALLI CROSS, KOGILU, YEHLAHANKA, BENGALURU 560064 2. MR. ABDUL WAHAB SHARIEFF, S/O LATE C.J. ABDUL KAREEM, RESIDING AT NO.106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT, BELLAHALLI CROSS, KOGILU, YEHLAHANKA, BENGALURU 560064 3. MRS. UMME KULSUM, D/O LATE C.J. ABDUL KAREEM, RESIDING AT NO. 106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10961 CMP No. 49 of 2025 BELLAHALLI CROSS, KOGILU, YEHLAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560064 4. MS. UMME SALMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE C.J. ABDUL KAREEM, RESIDING AT NO. 106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT, BELLAHALLI CROSS, KOGILU, YEHLAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560064 5. MRS. C. J ZAHARA JABEEN SULTANA, WIFE OF LATE C.K. JAFFER SHARIEF, RESIDING AT NO. 25/2, BORE BANK ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU – 560045 6. MRS. MEHBOOBA MUNAVARA SULTANA, WIFE OF LATE C.K. JAFFER SHARIEF, RESIDING AT NO. 4019, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU 560038. 7. MRS. ZAREEN KANJI, WIFE OF LATE C. J. KHADAR NAWAZ SHARIEF, RESIDING AT NO.106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT, BELLAHALLI CROSS, KOGILU, YEHLAHANKA, BENGALURU 560064 8. MR. B. K. ABDUL RAHMAN SHARIEF, SON OF LATE C. J. KHADAR NAWAZ SHARIEF, RESIDING AT NO.106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT, BELLAHALLI CROSS, KOGILU, YEHLAHANKA, BENGALURU 560064 9. DR. JAMEELA NAWAZ SHARIEF, DAUGHTER OF LATE C. J. KHADAR NAWAZ SHARIEF, RESIDING AT NO.106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT, BELLAHALLI CROSS, KOGILU, YEHLAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.A.H. RAZVI, ADVOCATE FOR R8 R1 TO R7 & R9 ARE SERVED) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10961 CMP No. 49 of 2025 THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) AND (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT SHRI KUKKAJE RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, FORMER DISTRICT JUDGE, OR ANY OTHER PERSON THAT THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT MAY DEEM FIT, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ENTER REFERENCE AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES UNDER CLAUSE 33/1 OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 14.03.2014 (ANNEXURE A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of clause No.33.1 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 14.03.2014 vide Annexure-A. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows : The petitioner is a developer, and the respondents are the land owners. Pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’ for brevity) and corresponding General - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10961 CMP No. 49 of 2025 Power of Attorney executed between the parties, the petitioner undertook the development of the project “Elegant Belvedere”, comprising 10 apartment units, and completed it without delay. The petitioner is entitled to a refund of the security deposit of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two crores) paid by the petitioner to the respondents. However, the respondents neglected the payment on one pretext or the other. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 04.09.2021. Pursuant to the legal notice, the respondents made part payment to acknowledge the debt created by the sale of unit No.3 by Mr Emad Mohamed, son of the fourth respondent, by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 13.09.2021. The purchaser, M/s QED Innovative Labs LLP, paid the petitioner a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lakhs). The other respondents have not paid their part of the payment of Rs.1,75,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Five Lakhs). The petitioner filed an interim application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in A.A.No.120/2022, wherein, after the appearance of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10961 CMP No. 49 of 2025 respondents, status quo order was passed regarding the schedule properties. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act of 1996 on 11.12.2024, referring all disputes inter-se the parties to the arbitration. The petitioner proposed the name of Sri. Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator. The said notice was duly served to the respondents, but the respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. Hence, a cause of action arose for the petitioner to file this petition. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition. 3. Notice was issued to respondent Nos.1 to 7 and 9. The said notice was duly served to the aforesaid respondents. The aforesaid respondents remained unrepresented. Respondent No.8 appeared through the counsel, but did not file the statement of objections. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.8. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10961 CMP No. 49 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have entered the JDA corresponding General Power of Attorney. The petitioner paid the security deposit amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- to the respondents, and after completion of the project, the respondents are liable to refund the security deposit amount to the petitioner. The respondents did not refund the security deposit to the petitioner. The fourth Respondent’s son paid a part of the security deposit amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, and the respondents have not paid the remaining security deposit amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing notice dated 11.12.2024 under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The respondents did not reply. Hence, the petitioner prays to appoint Sri.Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, retired District Judge as the sole Arbitrator. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10961 CMP No. 49 of 2025 7. The point, that arises for consideration is as follows: ‘Whether the petitioner made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that has arisen between the parties in terms of clause 33.1 of the JDA dated 14.03.2014 vide Annexure-‘A’, as per provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996’? 8. It is not disputed that the petitioner and respondents entered into the JDA on 14.03.2024. Pursuant to the agreement, the petitioners have paid amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- to the respondents towards the security deposit, and the said amount is refundable. The petitioner had completed the entire project. After completion of the project, the petitioner requested for the refund of the security deposit, and the fourth respondent’s son paid Rs.25,00,000/- but, the other respondents did not repay the remaining security amount. The petitioner issued a public notice on 28.06.2022 informing the public that the respondents are attempting to alienating the units in the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10961 CMP No. 49 of 2025 project without the petitioner’s consent and refunding the security deposit. Admittedly, the petitioner approached the City Civil Court, and filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 in A.A.No.120/2022. The respondents appeared in the said case, and the trial Court granted the order of status quo regarding the properties in schedule therein. Further, the petitioner requested the respondents to refund the security deposit, but the respondents did not repay the remaining security deposit amount. The petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act of 1996 on 11.12.2024. 9. I have perused the JDA dated 14.03.2014. The said agreement provides the arbitration clause as per clause No.33.1 which reads as under: 33.1: In the event of any dispute arising out of or touching upon any terms of this agreement, whether during its currency or after its cancellation, the same shall be decided by amicable settlement between the parties. In the event the disputes are not resolved within 30 days from the date they are raised, either party shall be entitled to refer the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10961 CMP No. 49 of 2025 dispute to arbitration under the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for final decision. The award of the arbitrator shall be binding on the parties. The venue of arbitration shall be Bangalore and the language of Arbitration English. Subject to this clause the courts at Bangalore shall have exclusive jurisdiction. 10. Admittedly, the respondents have not repaid the balance security deposit amount. A dispute has arisen between the petitioner and respondents regarding the payment of the security deposit amount. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause, and further, the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice dated 11.12.2024 under Section 21 of the Act, 1996. The respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. Thus, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the matter to the arbitrator. In view of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10961 CMP No. 49 of 2025 ii. Learned Sri.Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, retired District Judge, is appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of 33.1 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 14.03.2024, as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. iii. The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bengaluru. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE sks