- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8826 CMP No. 334 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 334 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. G. PRASAD REDDY, SON OF LATE SRI. G. SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.659, 5TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 034. 2. SMT. K. M. LAKSHMI, WIFE OF SRI. G. PRASAD REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.659, 5TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 034. 3. SRI. P. VISHWAS, SON OF SRI. G. PRASAD REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.C-5, CORPORATION NO.5-5, 2ND BLOCK, KORAMANGALA LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 034. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. G. CORP SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.21/19, CRAIG PARK LAYOUT, OFF. M.G. ROAD, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8826 CMP No. 334 of 2024 BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI. MUNINDER SEERU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.KRISHNA MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.G.K.BHAVANA., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO A. APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AS PROVIDED IN AGREEMENT DATED 22.12.2015 AS PER CLAUSE 9 ANNEXURE - B 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 Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking to appoint suitable person as sole Arbitrator in terms of Arbitration clause No.9 contained in the Agreement dated 22.12.2015 as per Annexure -B. 2. On issuance of notice to the respondent, the respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and filed statement of objection. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8826 CMP No. 334 of 2024 3. This captioned Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed on the strength of the agreement dated 22.12.2015 entered into between the petitioners and the respondent, which includes an Arbitration Clause, located at Clause 9.1 of the said agreement. 4. The petitioners are the owners of the schedule property, measuring a total of 44,000 sq. ft. Through a registered Sale Deed dated 01.04.2014, the petitioners conveyed their rights in the property to the respondent for a sale consideration of Rs. 20,80,00,000/-. 5. The petitioners contend that, in addition to the monetary consideration, the respondent was also required to transfer a built-up area of 20,000 sq. ft. as per the terms of the agreement. Their primary grievance is that, despite the execution of the registered Sale Deed and the existence of an agreement requiring the respondent to complete the project within a stipulated timeframe, the respondent has failed to fulfill its obligations. Consequently, invoking Section 21 of the Arbitration and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8826 CMP No. 334 of 2024 Conciliation Act, the petitioners issued a legal notice to the respondent, calling upon them to execute and register a Deed of Cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 22.12.2015 within 15 days of receiving the notice. 6. In the said notice, the petitioners also demanded payment of Rs. 6,82,00,000/-, as per the computation detailed in the agreement. Additionally, they sought a monthly payment of Rs. 11,50,000/- from 23.04.2024 to 22.12.2024, with an escalation of 15% every three years, commencing from 23.12.2024. 7. The respondent, in response to the petitioners' claims, issued a reply dated 10.06.2024, which is annexed as Annexure-L to the petition. The respondent asserted that multiple NOCs and approvals were required from authorities such as BWSSB, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Airport Authority of India, and HAL, which contributed to the delay. Furthermore, the respondent argued that the agreement did not specify a strict timeline and that time was not the essence of the contract. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8826 CMP No. 334 of 2024 Therefore, the petitioners had no grounds to seek cancellation of the Sale Deed. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent acknowledged the existence of an arbitration clause within the agreement. However, while filing a statement of objections, the respondent raised several serious contentions regarding the dispute. Nevertheless, the learned Senior Counsel fairly conceded that the respondent had no objection to appointing the Arbitrator suggested by the petitioners in their notice invoking Section 21 of the Act. 9. The objections raised by the respondent must necessarily be addressed by an Arbitrator. In arbitration proceedings, the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that the Arbitrator's role is to determine the existence of an arbitration clause and whether the dispute warrants reference to arbitration. Accordingly, the matter is to be resolved through arbitration as per the agreed terms. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8826 CMP No. 334 of 2024 10. The petitioners having fully complied with the mandate provided under Section 4(4) of the Act and the fact that the respondent acknowledges the existence of the arbitration clause, this Court proceeds to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, appointing Shri.Justice A.V.Chandrashekar, Former Judge of this Court, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioners and respondent in terms of the Clause-9.1 of the Agreement dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure-B) to the petition. (ii) All contentions are kept open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. (iii) The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and Shri.Justice A.V.Chandrashekar, Former Judge of this Court, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SJK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4