- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:984 CMP No. 90 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.90 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S VAISHNAVI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.2/2 WALTON ROAD, OFF VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON SHRI.VINEETH DHINGRA SENIOR VP BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHYAM SUNDAR M.S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.VANDANA P L, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR B K KANTHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI KRISHNA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.31, 1ST AVENUE SHUBH ENCLAVE HARALUR ROAD OFF SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE 560102 2. MR.B.K.NAGARAJ REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI KRISHNA REDDY Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:984 CMP No. 90 of 2024 RESIDING AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE 3. MRS RADHIKA MAJOR IN AGE W/O LATE B K ANANTHA REDDY R/O BELLANDUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE 560087 4. MASTER KUSHAL MINOR IN AGE S/O LATE B K ANANTHA REDDY R/O BELLANDUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE 560087 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN - SMT.RADHIKA 5. MISS VIDHYA MINOR IN AGE D/O LATE B K ANANTHA REDDY R/O BELLANDUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE 560087 REP BY MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT RADHIKA 6. SMT B K DHANALAKSHMI D/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY W/O SRI K S UMESH R/O NO.416, 21ST B CROSS 24TH MAIN, 2ND SECTOR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:984 CMP No. 90 of 2024 HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJETHA R NAIK.,ADVOCATE R.1, 3 TO 6; SRI.T.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) AND 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SOLE ARBITRATOR, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO APPOINT HONBLE JUSTICE SHRI BHAKTHAVATSALA (RETRD) AS A SOLE ARBITRATOR IN THE PRESENT MATTER OR ANY OTHER SOLE ARBITRATOR IN THE PRESENT MATTER AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND REFER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS TO ARBITRATOR AS MENTIONED IN THE CLAUSE NO.33 OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 24.01.2018, REGD. DOC NO. DOC NO. 9572/2017-18 OF BOOK I AT THE OFFICE SUB-REGISTRAR SHIVAJINAGARA/INDIRANAGARA, BANGALORE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking to appoint sole - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:984 CMP No. 90 of 2024 Arbitrator in terms of Clause No.33 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 24.01.2018 to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondents. 2. The petitioner company, engaged in real estate development, entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on November 24, 2018, with the respondents, who are owners of different adjacent parcels of land, and one Mr. Govindachari. The purpose of the JDA was to construct a commercial building named Vaishna Tech Park on the respondents' land. Following the project's completion, the petitioner asserts that it leased a portion of the building to M/s Smartworks under the authority of General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) executed in its favor. However, disputes arose when the respondents allegedly interfered with the lessee's possession of the property and failed to pay the amounts due to the petitioner. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the matter amicably, the issues remained unresolved. Consequently, on September 3, 2023, the petitioner - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:984 CMP No. 90 of 2024 issued a notice invoking the Arbitration Clause outlined in the JDA, further proposing the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. 3. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concede the existence of Arbitration Clause No.33 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 24.01.2018 and further, they agree for appointment of sole Arbitrator. 4. However, learned counsel appearing for respondents has raised a specific contention regarding the Arbitrator nominated by the petitioner in the notice invoking the arbitration clause. The learned counsel argues that the respondent has reservations and objections to the nomination of the said Arbitrator. This contention forms the crux of the respondent's objection, despite an overarching acknowledgment of the need for arbitration to resolve the disputes between the parties. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:984 CMP No. 90 of 2024 5. Upon a careful examination of the petition and the accompanying annexures, this Court finds that the petitioner has adhered to the procedural requirements mandated under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause appropriately by serving a legal notice and nominating an Arbitrator as per the terms of the agreement. The respondent, while raising an objection to the nominated Arbitrator, has not contested the applicability of the arbitration clause itself or the initiation of arbitration proceedings. Given the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent and the compliance demonstrated by the petitioner, the Court is satisfied that the statutory prerequisites under Section 11(4) of the Act have been duly fulfilled. Accordingly, the matter warrants the appointment of an Arbitrator to proceed with the resolution of disputes in accordance with the arbitration agreement. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:984 CMP No. 90 of 2024 6. In the light of the above said arbitration Clause and in the light of acceptance of the name of the Arbitrator suggested by the respondent, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, appointing Justice Subhash B. Adi, retired Judge of this Court, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondents in terms Clause No.33 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure-A) to the petition. (ii) All contentions are kept open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. (iii) The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and Justice Subhash B. Adi, retired Judge of this Court, as required - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:984 CMP No. 90 of 2024 under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15