- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17346 CMP No. 296 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 296 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR M NAYAZ AHMED S/O LATE MAQBOOL AHMED, AGED BOUT 53 YEARS, R./T NO.28, SIRSI ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANYASHREE PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAQSONS REALTY NO.20, B.S. RANOJI RAO RAOD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU -560 004. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS A) M. RIAYZ AHMED B) M. AYAZ AHMED 2. MR. M. RIYAZ AHMED S/O. LATE MAQBOOL AHMED, NO.23, MOHAMMADAN BLOCK, 4TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. ALSO AT Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17346 CMP No. 296 of 2023 MR. M. RIYAZ AHMED, S/O. LATE MAQBOOL AHMED, R/T NO.127, 19TH B CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011 3. MR. M. AYAZ AHMED S/O. LATE MAQBOOL AHMED, NO.10, FLAT NO.T.2, 3RD FLOOR, DR. UMAR SHARIEF ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. ALSO AT MR. M. AYAZ AHMED, S/O. LATE MAQBOOL AHMED, R/T NO.23, SIRSI ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMED SHAFI ULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO A) APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND ALLOW THE SAID ARBITRATOR TO ENTER UPON THE REFERENCE AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARISING OUT OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 01.04.2006 ANNEXURE-A. B) PASS SUCH AN ORDER AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17346 CMP No. 296 of 2023 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition as per Clause 18 of the partnership deed dated 01.04.2006. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as under: Respondents No.2 and 3 entered into a partnership deed with the petitioner’s father in the name and style Maqsons Realty vide Annexure –A. During the lifetime of Maqbool Ahmed Maqsons Realty had purchased an undivided office space level –III in Lexington Tower, built - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17346 CMP No. 296 of 2023 in a portion of property bearing Municipal No.18, 2nd Cross Road, Chikka Adugodi, Ward No.66, Bengaluru measuring 5000 sq.ft. vide Annexure-B in 2007. 3. The said partnership firm entered into a lease agreement with M/s. Prestige Estates Projects Limited agrees to give ‘A’ schedule property on lease for 9 years commencing from 01.07.2016 till 30.06.2025 vide Annexure –C. A memorandum of understanding was entered into between the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 on 21.03.2018 vide Annexure –E. The petitioner issued a legal notice to respondents on 08.03.2023, calling upon them to set right the accounts by paying the legitimate entitlement of petitioner within 7 days from the receipt of the said notice. Despite service of legal notice the respondents did not take any steps to set right the accounts of the firm and respondent No.2 withdrew the amount from the account of the firm. Hence, the petitioner issued an arbitration notice on 06.04.2023. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17346 CMP No. 296 of 2023 respondents have not replied to the arbitration notice. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition. 4. Notice was issued to the respondent No.1, despite service of notice respondent No.1 remained absent. The respondents No.2 and 3 appeared through counsel, but did not file statement of objections. 5. Heard Ms. Dhanyashree Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that there is a partnership deed executed between the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 on 01.04.2006 and if any dispute arises between the partners of the partnership firm the dispute has to be resolved through an arbitration in terms of Clause 18 of the partnership deed. She submits that respondents No.2 has withdrawn the amount from the firm’s accounts, without the consent of the petitioner. A dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the respondents. She submits that the petitioner has invoked the arbitration Clause by issuing an arbitration notice on 06.04.2023. The respondents have not replied. Hence, she - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17346 CMP No. 296 of 2023 submits that an arbitration Clause exists in the partnership deed. Hence, she prays to allow the petition. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of Clause 18 of the partnership deed dated 01.04.2006 vide Annexure-A as per the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?” 8. There is no dispute regarding the execution of the partnership deed dated 01.04.2006. A dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner invoked arbitration Clause by issuing a legal notice on 06.04.2023. 9. I have perused the partnership deed vide Annexure –A, which discloses that there is an arbitration Clause which reads as under: “18. In the event of any dispute, or difference of opinion in the matter of interpretation, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17346 CMP No. 296 of 2023 execution of or carrying out the objects and functions of the enterprise, arbitrator/s shall be appointed by the parties in dispute to resolve the dispute. If the arbitrators are divided equally then they shall amongst themselves appoint one umpire whose decision shall be final and binding upon all concerned.” 10. The bare reading of the Clause 18 of the partnership deed discloses that if dispute or any difference of opinion in the matter of interpretation, execution of or carrying out the objects and functions of the enterprise the arbitrator shall be appointed by the parties in dispute to resolve the dispute. 11. There is an arbitration Clause in the partnership deed and the dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the respondents. The dispute has to be resolved through arbitration. 12. In view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17346 CMP No. 296 of 2023 ORDER The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Hon’ble Sri. Justice Krishna Bhat, retired Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru is nominated as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Sole Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE BVK