- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3692 CMP No. 66 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.66 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI. AHESAN PASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SON OF LATE ABDUL BASHEER SAB, NO.17, LAL MASJID A STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560051. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.S. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MS. RAHAMATH BI AGED 70 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE SYED ABDUL KHADER RESIDENT OF OLD NO.28/1, NEW NO.99, WHEELER ROAD COX TOWN BANGALORE-560005 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.324/29, 8TH CROSS PILLANNA GARDEN 1ST STAGE BENGALURU. 2. MR. SYED SHAHINSHA AGED 45 YEARS, SON OF LATE SYED ABDUL KHADER RESIDENT OF OLD NO.28/1, NEW NO.99, WHEELER ROAD COX TOWN BANGALORE-560005 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.324/29, 8TH CROSS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3692 CMP No. 66 of 2021 PILLANA GARDEN 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 3. MR. SYED ABDUL RAHIM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, SON OF LATE SYED ABDUL KHADER RESIDENT OF OLD NO.28/1, NEW NO.99, WHEELER ROAD COX TOWN BANGALORE-560005 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.10, 12TH 'A' MAIN ROAD SONNAPPA BLOCK, PILLANNA GARDEN 3RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 005. 4. MS AKHILA BEE AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE SYED ABDUL KHADER RESIDENT OF OLD NO.28/1, NEW NO.99, WHEELER ROAD COX TOWN BANGALORE-560005 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT No.10, 12TH A MAIN ROAD, SONNAPPA BLOCK PILLANNA GARDEN 3RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 005. 5. MS. A K SALMA AGED 35 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE SYED ABDUL KHADER RESIDENT OF OLD NO.28/1, NEW NO.99, WHEELER ROAD COX TOWN BANGALORE-560005 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT No. IBN, . MISBAH STREET SHARAQ, No.43, BUILDING 3RD FLOOR, 11TH FLAT, KUWAIT - 123456. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3692 CMP No. 66 of 2021 PRAYING TO ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN ARBITRATOR IN CONTEST TO THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE RESPONDENTS RELATING TO THE SCHEDULE MENTIONED PROPERTY AND THE DISPUTE RELATING TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 16/07/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE SAID ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to refer all the claims and disputes between the parties. 2. On receipt of legal notice, respondent has tendered appearance by engaging a counsel. 3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, this Court has taken note of the legal notice dated 07.09.2020, annexed as Annexure-D, which was issued by the petitioner. A careful examination of the said notice reveals that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3692 CMP No. 66 of 2021 petitioner has merely expressed an intention to invoke the arbitration clause embedded in the agreement between the parties. However, the notice stops short of taking any substantive step towards the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. Specifically, it neither nominates nor appoints an arbitrator, nor does it propose a course of action in furtherance of the arbitration process as contemplated under the agreement. The notice, at best, reflects the petitioner’s general desire to refer the disputes to arbitration, but it fails to satisfy the procedural requirements set forth under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"). The mere indication of a willingness to arbitrate, without adherence to the prescribed procedural formalities, does not amount to a valid initiation of arbitration proceedings as envisaged by law. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to contend that the mere invocation of the arbitration clause by issuing a notice under Section - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3692 CMP No. 66 of 2021 21 of the Act would suffice to meet the requirements of Section 11(5) of the Act. However, this contention is untenable and contrary to the legal position settled by judicial precedents. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered in Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd.1 and Concorde Housing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. S.H. Puttaraju2, which categorically establish that a mere invocation of arbitration through a notice does not, by itself, fulfill the requirements of Section 11(5). The provision contemplates a clear and definitive step towards the appointment of an arbitrator, which is absent in the present case. Therefore, in light of the settled legal position, the petitioner’s contention is misconceived and cannot be sustained. 1 OMP.No.3 of 2015 2 CMP 198 of 2021 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3692 CMP No. 66 of 2021 5. In light of the foregoing, this Court concludes that the present petition is premature. The petitioner has not adequately invoked the arbitration clause in accordance with the statutory mandate. Consequently, the petition cannot be entertained at this stage. However, liberty is reserved for the petitioner to issue a fresh notice, in compliance with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and to approach this Court if the respondents fail to cooperate in the appointment of an arbitrator. 6. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41