- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3672 CMP No. 291 of 2023 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.291 OF 2023 BETWEEN: NOVA SHINE ESTATES LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT 2008 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.135, I CROSS, V BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER SRI. LOKESHA V., S/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YADUPATHI G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. A. KRISHNA REDDY S/O SRI M APPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.920, 9TH CROSS, 26TH MAIN, I SECTOR HSR, BENGALURU - 560 102. 2. SRI. A. MUNIRAJA REDDY S/O SRI. APPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3672 CMP No. 291 of 2023 R/AT NO.43, HAROHALLI HUSKURE, HUSKUR, BENGALURU - 560 099. 3. SRI. H.A. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O SRI APPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.43, HAROHALLI, HUSKURE, HUSKUR, BENGALURU - 560 099. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR (SRI. KUKKAJE RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, DISTRICT JUDGE (RETD) NO.2, 1ST CROSS, JUDICIAL OFFICERS LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094) OR ANY SUCH OTHER QUALIFIED PERSON AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 17.3 OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED DATED 25/02/2021 VIDE (ANNEXURE - A) TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 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 civil miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 seeking appointment of sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute and differences between the parties in terms of the registered lease deed dated 25.2.2021. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3672 CMP No. 291 of 2023 2. After receipt of notice, respondents have tendered appearance and have engaged a counsel. 3. Petitioner, a registered partnership firm has entered into a registered lease deed with respondents. The period of lease stipulated under the said lease deed is 15 years. Petitioner claims that it has paid an amount of Rs.8,77,026/- to the respondents towards interest free security deposit under the said lease deed towards use and occupation of the schedule property. Petitioner is also asserting the rights emanating from Clauses 6.4, 7.1.1, 7.1.2 and 9.13 empowering the petitioner to occupy and possess and use the schedule property for any purpose free from any hindrance. Petitioner has invoked the arbitral clause by issuing a legal notice dated 8.6.2023 inviting for mutual discussion for amicable settlement as contemplated under the arbitration clause. After expiry of 30 days since the deliberations did not take off and did not yield any results, petitioner called upon respondent consent for appointment of arbitrator nominated by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3672 CMP No. 291 of 2023 petitioner to adjudicate the dispute by invoking clause 17.3 of the lease deed which provides for arbitration. 4. Respondents have filed the statement of objections and contested the petition contending that the respondents landlord have already knocked the doors of the Court and have sought for cancellation of the registered lease deed and therefore, petitioner cannot invoke the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Act. 5. Respondents have also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc .vs. SBI Home Finance Limited and others 1 indicating that the disputes between the petitioner and respondents primarily being one of the landlord and tenant, the arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. 6. This Court after thorough review of the petition annexures and supporting documents is satisfied that the petitioner has met the procedural requirements outlined 1 AIR 2011 SC 2507 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3672 CMP No. 291 of 2023 under Section 11(4) of the Act. The contentious issues relating to the arbitrator's jurisdiction to examine the dispute on hand not falling within the domain of arbitrator is also left to be decided by the arbitrator. 7. In the light of the aforesaid clause of arbitration and contentions advanced by both the petitioner and respondents, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed appointing Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, Retired District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents and conduct proceedings 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) The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and to Shri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, Retired District Judge, as - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3672 CMP No. 291 of 2023 required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6