- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1952 CMP No. 236 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.236 OF 2024 BETWEEN: YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY DR.DANIEL RATHNAKAR J …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUKUMARAN G, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S M.R.P. HOME INN (P) LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.155/A, 9TH MAIN R M V EXTENSION BENGALURU - 560 080 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.V.RAMPRASAD …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1952 CMP No. 236 of 2024 THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FIILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 READ WITH RULE 20 OF SCHEME FOR APPOINTMENT ARBITRATOR BY KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BE PLEASED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY (A) TO CONSTITUTE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL BY APPOINTMENT OF A SUITABLE PERSON AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 READ WITH RULE 20 OF SCHEME FOR APPOINTMENT ARBITRATOR BY KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTES, DIFFERNCES, AND CLAIMS THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 30.09.2004 (ANNEXURE-A, HEREIN) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This captioned Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short '1996 Act') requesting this Court to appoint a sole Arbitrator . - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1952 CMP No. 236 of 2024 2. The respondent, on receipt of notice, has tendered appearance and has engaged a lawyer and statement of objection is filed. 3. The respondent, in their statement of objection, has raised a preliminary issue concerning the maintainability of the present petition. It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner has failed to adhere to the procedural requirements mandated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act"). Specifically, the petitioner has not invoked arbitration proceedings in accordance with Section 21 of the 1996 Act. The respondent has asserted that the mere issuance of a legal notice, followed by observations made by the Civil Court under Section 8 of the 1996 Act in proceedings bearing O.S. No. 25533/2016, does not fulfill the statutory requirement for invocation of arbitration as envisaged under Section 21 of the 1996 Act. 4. Upon a detailed examination of the records of the case, this Court has considered the legal position, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1952 CMP No. 236 of 2024 particularly in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of D.P. Construction vs. Vishvaraj Environment Pvt. Ltd., Misc. Civil Application (Arbn.) No.31/2021. In the said judgment, the Bombay High Court has categorically held that the issuance of a notice under Section 21 of the 1996 Act, explicitly invoking the arbitration clause and nominating an arbitrator, is a necessary precondition before approaching the Court under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. 5. In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner has approached this Court prematurely without first issuing a notice under Section 21 of the 1996 Act. The petitioner was required to formally invoke the arbitration clause contained in the agreement by issuing a notice to the respondent, nominating an arbitrator, and thereby providing an opportunity to the respondent to either agree with the nomination or propose an alternative. This mandatory step, which forms the cornerstone of initiating - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1952 CMP No. 236 of 2024 arbitration proceedings, has not been complied with in the current case. 6. In light of the above, this Court is constrained to hold that the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act is premature and unsustainable. The petitioner, having failed to comply with the procedural requirement of issuing a notice under Section 21 of the 1996 Act, cannot proceed further under this petition. 7. Nevertheless, this Court deems it appropriate to reserve liberty to the petitioner to invoke Section 21 of the 1996 Act by duly issuing a notice to the respondent and nominating an arbitrator. Should the respondent fail to respond, contest, or refuse the invocation, the petitioner shall have the liberty to approach this Court once again under the relevant provisions of the 1996 Act to seek appropriate relief. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1952 CMP No. 236 of 2024 Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of as being premature, with the above liberty reserved in favor of the petitioner. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46