- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7919 CMP No. 127 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 127 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. DVP INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD. (JV), A JOINT VENTURE COMPRISING:- M/S. DVP INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 CIN-U45200PN2015PTC154147. RDS PROJECT LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, REGISTRATION NO. 55-49570, HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 1601 16th FLOOR, CYBER ONE, GREENSCAPE SECTOR 30A, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI - 400 703, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. RAMAN D.V. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, (PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT) KARNATAKA MARITIME BOARD, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7919 CMP No. 127 of 2024 PORTS AND FISHERIES DIVISION, SHAMIL HALL, 2nd FLOOR, AMBALAPADY UDUPI - 576 103, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR. 2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, SUSTAINABLE COASTAL PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAM, OLD MANGALORE PORT OFFICE BUILDING, BUNDER, MANGALORE - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1; SMT. KAVITHA H.C, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR AS PER 20.6(B) UNDER THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT (PCC) DATED 11.07.2019 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B) AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7919 CMP No. 127 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( for short, 'Act') seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute and difference between the parties herein in terms of clause 20.6(b) of the contract agreement dated 11.07.2019 vide Annexure-B. 2. Respondent No.2 has appeared and engaged a counsel. 3. This civil miscellaneous petition is filed invoking the arbitration clause. The petitioner alleges that the respondents, having accepted the petitioner's bid, handed over the site for execution of the project. The petitioner alleges that respondents after execution of contract agreement made several variations in the Bills of Quantities (BOQ) and accordingly, petitioner changed the design and methodology for carrying out contract work. Petitioner also alleges that he had sent a letter on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7919 CMP No. 127 of 2024 02.07.2020 detailing out the variations in the BOQ subsequent to the agreement and claimed cost of difference payable from the respondents. 4. Petitioner alleges that respondents have misused their possession and compelled the petitioner to sign various agreements without altering the rates and therefore, several letters are issued by the petitioner requesting the respondents to appoint arbitrator as per 20.6(b) of the contract agreement dated 11.07.2019. The petitioner alleges that there is no response in spite of receipt of notice and therefore, the petitioner was compelled to issue a notice on 04.05.2023 invoking the arbitration clause and thereby called upon respondents to pay a sum of Rs.17,63,40,900-00 and also appoint an arbitrator. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 acknowledges the existence of an arbitration clause. However, on instructions, she submits that she has some reservations in regard to the arbitrator nominated by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7919 CMP No. 127 of 2024 petitioner. She insists the court appoint a technical arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. 6. After a thorough review of the petition, annexures and supporting documents, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has met the procedural requirements outlines under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The existence of arbitration is not in dispute. Whether the lis between the parties requires the assistance of a technical arbitrator is left to the discretion of the arbitrator to be decided during the course of the proceedings. 7. In the light of the aforesaid clause of arbitration and the contentions advanced by the petitioner the following order is passed: ORDER (a) The petition is allowed appointing Shri Justice A.V.Chandrashekar, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka as the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7919 CMP No. 127 of 2024 sole arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents and conduct proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre. (b) All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. (c) The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and to Shri Justice A.V.Chandrashekar, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7919 CMP No. 127 of 2024 (d) Liberty is however reserved to the respondent to seek assistance of an expert during the course of the proceedings. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK