- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6115 CMP No. 368 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 368 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYATH TURUVEKERE-572 227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. C. KODANDA RAMA RAJU CONTRACTOR NO. 38/42, HARI NIVASA 15TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS PADMANABHA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 070. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. J.R. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS AS PER CONTRACT CONDITION KW-4 COLUMN 4 ARBITRATION (CLAUSE-24) AS PER THE TENDER DOCUMENT DATED 25/01/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6115 CMP No. 368 of 2022 ORAL ORDER This civil miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute and difference between the parties in terms of clause 4.1 of the tender contract dated 25.01.2010 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent evidenced at Annexure-Q. 2. The respondent, on receipt of notice, has engaged a counsel. 3. The petitioner asserts that the respondent, having participated in the tender process pursuant to the tender notification, was declared the successful bidder and consequently entered into a contractual obligation to execute the assigned work. However, the respondent allegedly failed to fulfill its contractual duties and did not complete the work as stipulated in the tender contract. Due to this non-compliance and breach of contractual - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6115 CMP No. 368 of 2022 obligations by the respondent, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to rescind the contract. As a direct consequence of the respondent’s failure, the petitioner was compelled to initiate a fresh tender process in 2018, leading to the assignment of the work to a new bidder. The petitioner contends that the execution of the same work under the new contract resulted in an additional financial burden amounting to Rs.2,68,58,000/-. In light of this, the petitioner, relying on the arbitration clause contained in the tender agreement, issued a formal arbitration notice to the respondent, seeking redress for the incurred losses. 4. Despite the issuance of the arbitration notice, the respondent has failed to furnish any reply or response to the same. However, during the course of proceedings, the counsel representing the respondent has sought to rely on a Government Circular dated 16.11.2024, which purportedly withdraws the arbitration clause from government contracts. Based on this circular, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6115 CMP No. 368 of 2022 respondent’s counsel argues that the petitioner is precluded from invoking the arbitration clause in the present case. The respondent asserts that in light of the said circular, any dispute arising out of the contract must be adjudicated through alternate mechanisms prescribed by the government rather than through arbitration. The petitioner, however, disputes this contention, maintaining that the arbitration clause, as incorporated in the original tender contract, remains valid and binding between the parties. 5. On closer examination of the annexures along with civil miscellaneous petition and other supporting documents, this Court is of the view that petitioner has succeeded in substantiating the existence of arbitration clause. This Court is satisfied that petitioner has fulfilled the requirements of mandate provided under Section 11(4) of the Act. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6115 CMP No. 368 of 2022 6. For the foregoing reasons and having examined the arguments advanced by the petitioner and the respondent, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed appointing Sri. Vishwanath V.Angadi, Retired District Judge as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre; (ii) All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings; (iii) Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and to Sri. Vishwanath V.Angadi, Retired District Judge as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1