- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16542 CMP No. 90 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 90 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 2. MRS BYAMMA D/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. MR RAJANNA S/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. MR P NAGESH GOWDA S/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 5. MR P MUNEGOWDA S/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT GKVK POST, ALLALSANDRA YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560064. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MURTHY K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16542 CMP No. 90 of 2025 AND: M/S PYRAMID BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS REP. BY ITS PARTNERS, SRI G N HANUMEGOWDA, SRI RAJESH B P HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 109/1B, 3RD DIVISION, NEHRU NAGAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560064. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT/ MISS SHWETHA M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY N., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996. PRAYING TO APPOINT ANY ONE OF RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FROM KARNATAKA JUDICIARY OR ANY RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE RESIDING AT BANGALORE AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENT ARISING UNDER THE REGISTERED JDA DATED 07.08.2013 AS PER CLASS No.20 OF ANNEXURE-B AND REFER THE DISPUTES TO THE SAID ARBITRAROR WITH NECESSARY DIRECTIONS AND ALSO PASS SUCH OTHER DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT. 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1996’ for short) for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16542 CMP No. 90 of 2025 appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties arising under the registered joint development agreement dated 07.08.2013 as per clause 20 vide Annexure -B. 2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The petitioners and respondent have entered into a registered Joint Development Agreement (for short JDA) dated 07.08.2013 to develop the converted landed property bearing Sy.No.22/2, situated at Yalahanka Amanikere village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring to an extent of 2 acres i.e., 87120 sq.ft., converted for nonagricultural residential purpose. It was agreed that the project to be completed within 36 months, with a grace period of six months. The respondent did not comply with the terms of the JDA. 3. The petitioners invoked the arbitration Clause of the JDA by issuing a notice and filed the petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 in CMP No.200/2023 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16542 CMP No. 90 of 2025 connected with CMP No.301/2023. This Court vide order dated 19.09.2023, allowed the petition and nominated the Arbitrator. Pursuant to the disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, the Arbitral Tribunal registered the case as A.C.No.634/2023 (CMP No.200/2023). The parties to the petition have filed a compromise petition before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal accepted the settlement agreement and passed an award under Section 30 of the Act, 1996 read with Rule 22(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Rules) 2012. 4. The case was disposed of on 12.06.2024 in terms of the settlement agreement. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent did not comply with the terms of the said settlement agreement. Hence, the dispute arises between the petitioners and the respondent and it is stated that the petitioners issued a notice on 09.01.2025 calling upon the respondent to execute the cancellation of the registered joint development agreement dated 07.08.2013 and seeking the damages for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16542 CMP No. 90 of 2025 having sustained financial loss without any development in the schedule property. The respondent replied to the legal notice on the false and untenable grounds on 31.01.2025. Thus, the petitioners are constrained to file this petition. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the respondent have executed a registered joint development agreement on 07.08.2013. The respondent failed to perform its obligation in terms of the registered joint development agreement. The petitioners invoked an arbitration Clause by filing Civil Miscellaneous Petitions in CMP Nos.200/2023 and 301/2023. This Court allowed the petitions and nominated the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal a settlement agreement was filed and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16542 CMP No. 90 of 2025 the Arbitral Tribunal accepted the settlement agreement and disposed of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent did not perform its obligation in terms of the settlement agreement. Hence, the petitioners by issuing a legal notice dated 09.01.2025 once again invoked the arbitration Clause under the JFA. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petition filed by the petitioners is maintainable in view of the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in A.C.No.634/2023(CMP No.200/2023)?” 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and the respondent have entered into a registered joint development agreement on 07.08.2013. The petitioners raised a dispute with the respondent by invoking the arbitration Clause by issuing notice. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16542 CMP No. 90 of 2025 1996 for nomination of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent, on CMP No.200/2023 connected with CMP No.301/2023. 11. This Court vide order dated 19.09.2023, allowed the petitions and nominated a Former Judge of this Court, as a Sole Arbitrator. After constituting the Arbitral Tribunal the petitioners submitted a claim before the Arbitral Tribunal in A.C.No.634/2023. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal the parties have filed a settlement agreement. The Arbitral Tribunal accepted the settlement agreement on 12.06.2024 and passed an award under Section 30 of the Act, 1996 read with Rule 22(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. The award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal has attained finality. The petitioners’ grievance is that the respondent did not comply the terms of the settlement agreement. Hence, petitioners are seeking for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16542 CMP No. 90 of 2025 12. Admittedly, the parties have settled the matter and filed a settlement agreement before the Arbitral Tribunal. In case if the respondent has not complied with the terms of the arbitral award, the petitioners have got a remedy for enforcing the award of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 36 of the Act, 1996 which provides for enforcement of an arbitral award, which reads as follows: “36. Enforcement. – (1) Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. (2) Where an application to set aside the arbitral award has been filed in the Court under Section 34, the filing of such an application shall not by itself render that award unenforceable, unless the Court grants an order of stay of the operation of the said arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3), on a separate application made for that purpose. (3) Upon filing of an application under sub- section (2) for stay of the operation of the arbitral award, the Court may, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award for reasons to be recorded in writing:” - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16542 CMP No. 90 of 2025 13. Section 36(1) of the Act, 1996 provides that where an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, then subject to provisions of Section 36(2), such an award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it was a decree of the Court. Admittedly, an award has been passed and the same has not been challenged by the respondent, and hence, the said award has attained the finality. In case, if, the respondent has not complied or obeyed the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the petitioner can enforce the arbitral award under Section 36 of the Act, 1996. When there is a satisfactory remedy available to the enforcement of the arbitral award the second petition for the appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable. 14. In view of the above discussion, petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in negative. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16542 CMP No. 90 of 2025 Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9