- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18174 CMP No. 80 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 80 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S K A S BUILD TECH A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.22/1, 2ND FLOOR, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.ANIL KUMAR M S/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SREERAMA K S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT SREE NILAYA 2ND FLOOR, ASHWINI LAYOUT NEAR DECCAN HOSPITAL CHINTAMANI 5631125 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH V G., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) AND (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO NOMINATE INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR TO . Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18174 CMP No. 80 of 2025 ADJUDICATE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 10 OF AGREEMENT STYLED AS AGREEMENT OF TRANSFER OF FROM C DATED 20.01.2022, VIDE ANNEXURE A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 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, to nominate the Independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and respondent in terms of Clause-10 of the Agreement styled as “Agreement of Transfer of Form-C” dated 20.01.2022, vide Annexure-A. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The respondent made an application to the Senior Geologist seeking a grant of quarry lease regarding Sy.No.199, Block No.7, measuring 10 acres situated at Devarayasamudra village, Mulbagilu Taluk, Kolar District. The quarry lease was granted to the respondent. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18174 CMP No. 80 of 2025 respondent, to manufacture M-sand, and aggregates made an application to the District Licensing Authority, headed by the Deputy Commissioner for the grant of license in Form-C regarding aforesaid land. The Deputy Commissioner declaring B schedule property as safer zone issued Form B1 authorizing the respondent to obtain a consent for the establishment, and established stone crusher unit in the ‘B’ schedule property. It is stated that the respondent could not invest and intended to transfer the license proposed to be given by the Licensing Authority in favour of the petitioner. The respondent entered into an agreement styled as “Agreement for transfer of license in Form-C” dated 20.01.2022 vide Annexure-A agreeing to transfer the license in Form-C proposed to be given by the District Licensing Authority. 3. It is stated that based on the agreement, the petitioner purchased the stone crusher unit with an investment of Rs.7.0 crores. After investing the petitioner requested the respondent to obtain the operation consent. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18174 CMP No. 80 of 2025 Despite the request, the respondent did not make any application to obtain consent for establishment, and consent for operation. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 21.08.2023 vide Annexure-D, calling upon the respondent to obtain consent for establishment. The respondent received the notice and sent a reply on 13.10.2023 stating that the agreement was entered into by fraudulent means and the same is unenforceable in law. The petitioner issued another legal notice on 12.12.2024 vide Annexure- F invoking Clause-10 of the Agreement and proposed the name of Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ajith J. Gunjal as the sole Arbitrator, and called upon the respondent to agree for the appointment of the Arbitrator. The legal notice was returned unserved, with a shara as ‘unclaimed’. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition. 4. The respondent filed a statement of objections contending that the petitioner was granted Form-B1, i.e., certificate of compliance by notification dated 22.04.2022. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18174 CMP No. 80 of 2025 The certificate of compliance was issued in favour of the respondent after consideration of the application, and after all parameters were fulfilled. It is stated that the agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent is unenforceable, and the agreement entered is not registered. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel Sri. Lakamapurmath chidanandayya, for the petitioner, and Sri.Bhanuprakash V.G., learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent have entered into an Agreement dated 20.01.2022 styled as “Agreement of Transfer of Form-C”. He submits that the respondent did not perform his part of the contract in terms of the Agreement dated 20.01.2022. The petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent requesting to obtain the consent for establishment and to perform his part of contract and obligations. Despite service of notice, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18174 CMP No. 80 of 2025 respondent did not perform his part of the contract. He submits that there is an arbitration clause in the Agreement dated 20.01.2022 and the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice dated 12.12.2024. The said notice was returned ‘unclaimed’. Hence, he submits that there is an arbitration clause and that the dispute between the parties to the petition has to be adjudicated through arbitration. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the respondent has filed a statement of objections, he has no objection to allow the petition, and he submits that all the contentions may be kept open. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The point, that arises for consideration is, as follows: “Whether the petitioner made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18174 CMP No. 80 of 2025 Clause-10 of the Agreement dated 20.01.2022 styled as “Agreement of transfer of Form-C” as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?” 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent have entered into an Agreement of Transfer of Form-C on 20.01.2022, and as per the terms of the Agreement of Transfer of Form-C, the respondent was required to make an application to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for obtaining the consent for establishment of stone crusher unit in B schedule property. After receiving the consent for the establishment, the respondent was required to permit the petitioner to establish the stone crusher unit in the ‘B’ schedule property. The respondent did not make any application to obtain consent for establishment, and consent for operation. The petitioner, having fed up with the delaying attitude of the respondent, issued a legal notice on 21.08.2023, calling upon the respondent to obtain the consent for establishment, enabling the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18174 CMP No. 80 of 2025 petitioner to establish the stone crusher unit, and carry on the manufacturing of M-sand. Thereafter, the petitioner issued an arbitration notice invoking clause 10 of the Agreement dated 20.01.2022. 11. I have perused the agreement dated 20.01.2022, which discloses that there is an Arbitration clause, which reads as follows: 10.1: That the party of the First part shall resolve all the disputes by mutual negotiation. In the event of the party of the first part commits a breach under this Agreement, the party of the second part is hereby authorized by the party of the First part to nominate the Arbitrator of his choice to adjudicate the dispute between the party of the First part and party of the Second part and the Arbitrator will have the powers for specific performance, damages under this agreement and the said award passed is final and binding on the parties. The nominee of the Arbitrator by the party of the First part is final and binding. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18174 CMP No. 80 of 2025 12. From the perusal of Clause-10.1 of the Agreement, which provides an arbitration clause it states that ‘in the event of party of the first part commits breach under the Agreement, second party authorized by the party of the first part to nominate the Arbitrator of his choice to adjudicate the dispute between the party of the first part and party of the second part. Pursuant to the Arbitration clause in the Agreement, the petitioner invoked an arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice dated 12.12.2024, proposing the name of Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ajit J Gunjal, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, as the sole Arbitrator. The arbitration notice was returned unserved. 13. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause, and the dispute between the parties to the petition is to be adjudicated through Arbitration. The dispute arises between the parties, and the dispute has to be adjudicated through an Arbitration. The learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to allow the petition. In - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:18174 CMP No. 80 of 2025 view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. ii. Hon’ble Justice Mr. John Michael D Cunha, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka is nominated as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the rules. iii. The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. iv. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS