- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 433 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MAYA TRADELINKS LIMITED VAIBHAV 4, LEE ROAD KOLKATA-700 020 RERPESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. MANMAY KUMAR GHOSH …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY V. JOSHI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI KIRTI KUMAR KABRA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NO. A-906 R N S SHANTHI NIVAS YESHWANTHPURA, TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE 560 022 2. SMT. MANJUSHREE KABRA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO. A-906 R N S SHANTHI NIVAS YESHWANTHPURA, TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE 560 022 3. SMT PUSPA DEVI MALPANI HOUSE NO. 27, MURLI BHAVAN Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 HANUMANGANJ, BHOPAL MADYA PRADESH 462001 4. SMT. SHOBHNA LADDA F-702, NAVLINGAM APARTMENT CITY LIGHT ROAD NEAR AGRASEN BHAVAN SURAT, GUJARAT 395007 5. SHRI RAJENDRA KABRA HOUSE NO. 201, S BLOCK FINE RESIDENCY GULMOHAR, G-3 BHOPAL, MADYA PRADESH 462039 6. SHRI BHUVNESH KABRA E-6/77(A), ARERA COLONY BHOPAL, MADYA PRADESH 462016 7. SMT. SUSHMA RATHI HOUSE NO. J-10/11 RAJOURI GARDEN NEW DELHI 110027 8. SMT. SHAILAJA MUCHAL NO. 633 USHA NAGAR EXTENSION INDORE, M P 452009 9. SMT. SUBHADA RATHI PLOT 271, ROHIT NAGAR PHASE-II, BHOPAL, M P 462039 10. SMT. MEENAKSHI MALPANI HOUSE NO. 3-B, PUNYA DARSHAN GULMOHAR, CROSS ROAD 5 VILLE PARLE (WEST) MUMBAI 400049 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAINA KOTHARI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRA. V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO (A) CONSTITUTE AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL COMPRISED OF A SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PETITIONERS CLAIMS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID CLAUSE 8 OF THE SALE AGREEMENT, DATED 24.11.2017 ANNEXURE-B (B) TO AWARD COSTS OF THIS PETITION TO THE PETITIONER. 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 under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of clause No.8 of the sale agreement dated 24.11.2017 vide Annexure-B, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition or as follows: The present petition is filed against respondents No.1 and 3 to 10 and in their capacity as the legal heirs of late Smt. Lalita Devi Kabra, who was the owner of the property - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 measuring 4 acres in survey No.165 in item No.1, 4 acres in Sy.No.161 in item No.2, and 4 acres in survey No.160 in item No.3 situated at Kommaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore Urban district, Bengaluru. The petitioner filed a petition against respondent No.2, in her capacity as the owner of the property measuring 1 acre 28 guntas in survey No.164 in item No.4 and 4 acres in survey No.159 in item No.5 situated at Kommaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. Respondent No.2 owned 3 acres 20 guntas in survey No.158, located at Kommaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. 2.1. It is contended that ‘A’ schedule properties are notified for acquisition by KIADB, while ‘B’ schedule property had been notified by acquisition by the BDA. The Agreement dated 17.07.2014, i.e., principal agreement was executed by late Smt. Lalita Devi Kabra and respondent No.2, agreeing to sell the schedule properties in favour of the petitioner, subject to terms and conditions set out therein. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 2.2. Considering the substantial amount paid/agreed to be paid by the petitioner, late Smt.Lalita Devi Kabra, and respondent No.2 executed, and furnished to the petitioner, a General Power of Attorney inter alia authorizing the petitioner to take necessary steps to resolve all encumbrances over the schedule properties, to represent late. Smt.Lalita Devi Kabra and respondent No.2 in all legal proceedings concerning the schedule properties. Smt. Lalita Devi Kabra passed away on 11.12.2015. Thereafter, with respect to ‘B’ schedule property, the acquisition process by the BDA was nearing completion. 2.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered into an agreement i.e., supplemental agreement dated 24.11.2017, with the petitioner, in which respondent Nos.1 and 2 confirmed the terms and conditions of the Principal Agreement, and also agreed that, upon receipt of the compensation from the BDA, the same would be conveyed /transferred to the petitioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 2.4. It is contended that respondent No.2 failed and neglected to convey the BDA sites to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings against respondent No.2 concerning the ‘B’ schedule property, culminating in an arbitral award dated 10.10.2022 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 has challenged the said arbitral award in commercial A.P.No.26/2023 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is pending adjudication. It is contended that apart from ‘A’ schedule properties being notified by the KIADB for acquisition, items No.3 to 5 are the subject matter of two separate civil suits in O.S.No.1180/2013, and O.S.No.1558/2013. Both these suits have been filed by the former landowners. 2.5. The suit in O.S.No.1180/2013 has been filed for declaration of title with respect to ‘A’ schedule item No.3 property, in which late Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are arrayed as some of the defendants. The suit is pending adjudication. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 O.S.No.1558/2013 is filed for partition and separate possession regarding schedule A item No.5 property, in which late Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra and respondent No.2 have been arrayed as some of the defendants. This suit is also pending for adjudication. Schedule ‘A’ item Nos.3 and 5 properties were also the subject matter of the order dated 26.11.2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, in R.A.(S) 349/2014-15, permitting the mutation of the revenue entries to reflect the names of the former land owners subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit in O.S.No.1180/2013. 2.6. The petitioner requested respondent No.1 to challenge the order dated 26.11.2020 before the Deputy Commissioner or the High Court. It appears that, to date, the respondents have not taken such steps. Before the commencement of the dispute about the schedule ‘B’ property. The petitioner was attending to the legal proceedings on behalf of the respondents, and had engaged its advocates to represent the respondents in two - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 civil suits. The petitioner could no longer represent the respondents in the said legal proceedings and instructed its advocates to furnish NOC to enable them to engage their own advocates and continue the contesting with two civil suits. 2.7. It is contended that the respondents are colluding with the former land owners to defeat the petitioner’s rights over, and entitlement to schedule ‘A’ properties. It is stated that the GPA dated 17.07.2014 furnished by respondent No.2 remains valid, subsisting, and available to the petitioner. Further, the General Power of Attorney dated 17.07.2014, executed by late Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra, being one coupled with interest, remains valid and subsisting. 2.8. On the demise of late Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra, the petitioner assisted respondent No.1 in obtaining power of attorney and affidavits from his siblings, respondent Nos.1 to 10, acknowledging that the schedule properties belonged to his mother, late Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra, are - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 to be inherited only by respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.3 to 10 will not raise any claim over the said schedule properties. 2.9. Respondents No.3 to 10 have not executed the release deed releasing their shares from the said schedule properties in favour of respondent No.1, and it was also assured that a fresh GPA would be executed in favour of the petitioner, which was also remained pending till date. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 22.12.2023 to the respondents, setting all the issues and calling upon the respondents to abide by the mutually accepted obligations under the Principal Agreement read with the supplemental Agreement. The petitioner called upon respondents to furnish appropriate GPA on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 3 to 10 to enable the petitioner to take practical steps to contest the civil suits and to take other effective steps to secure ‘A’ schedule properties. 2.10. Despite receipt of the said letter dated 22.12.2023, the respondents have not bothered to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 respond or comply with the requisitions set out in the letter. The petitioner addressed a letter to the respondents on 23.01.2024 reiterating some above-mentioned facts and called upon the respondents to engage in arbitration proceedings as provided under clause 8 of the agreement of sale/supplemental agreement dated 24.11.2017, seeking specific performance of their obligations and to furnish the petitioner, a GPA on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 10. Despite the receipt of the said notice of an Arbitration, the respondents have not bothered to respond. Hence, this petition. 3. The respondents filed a statement of objections. The respondents herein along with respondent No.1’s mother, late Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra are the absolute owners of the agricultural land in Sy.No.158(BDA site), 159, 160, 161, 164 and 165 (KIADB sites) in Kommaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. In 2011, the property bearing 158 was notified for acquisition by BDA, while the other parcels of land in Sy.Nos.159, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 160,161, 164 and 165 owned by respondent No.2 and her mother-in-law were notified for acquisition by KIADB, and one also pending litigation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, along with Smt. Lalitha Devi kabra were parties to the said suits in O.S.No.1585/2007. The suit was finally settled by way of a compromise dated 01.08.2013. The plaintiffs in the said suit unilaterally assigned their rights under the compromise decree to the petitioner vide deed of assignment dated 17.02.2014 and informed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein that the petitioner will comply with the terms of the said compromise decree, as per the assignment deed dated 17.02.2014. The petitioner executed an agreement of sale dated 17.07.2014 with respondent No.2 and their mother Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra, who was alive at that time. 3.1. As per clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement dated 17.07.2014, the balance amount of Rs.2,75,00,000/- would be paid on the release of the remaining properties in item Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 on the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 schedule properties (KIADB sites) and registered conveyance deed being executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner or grant of compensation or developed land in any of the remaining properties. 3.2. The terms and conditions of the agreement dated 17.07.2014 have been set out in para 8 of the statement of objections. Despite the conditions, the payments were not made by the petitioner. Respondents No.1 and 2 raised issues repeatedly. The petitioner assured them it will make the balance payment and insisted on executing one more agreement dated 24.11.2017. Because of the repeated assurances, coercion, threats, and manipulation by the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 signed the second agreement on 24.11.2017. It is contended that the BDA had completed the acquisition of the properties in Sy.No.158 and has created 21 sites, which would be allotted to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The second agreement was executed on 24.11.2017 and it completely changed the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 terms of the transaction. It is contended that from October 2019, when the sale deeds for the sites were registered in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 by the BDA, the petitioner did not come forward to register the same in its favour, nor did the petitioner send even a single email or letter to respondent Nos.1 and 2 stating that it was ready and willing. 3.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 sent a letter dated 30.01.2021, terminating the agreements and stating that they would no longer sell the said properties to the petitioner and offered to refund the amounts received along with 9% interest. The petitioner did not reply to the termination notice. The petitioner approached the learned City Civil Court, Bengaluru (Commercial Court) under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief to restrain respondents No.1 and 2 from alienating, and creating third-party rights. The City Civil Court, Bengaluru, passed the order dated 31.05.2021, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 Rs.1.5 crores, and the petitioner complied with the order. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 in CMP No.152/2021. This Court, vide order dated 05.08.2021, constituted the Arbitration Tribunal, and the matter was referred to Arbitration. 3.4. The petitioner filed its statement of claim seeking against respondents No.1 and 2 to be directed to register the sale deeds for the 19 sites conveyed to them by the BDA in favour of respondent No.1, and receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.1.5 Crores and thereafter, also convey remaining 2 sites as and when conveyed by the BDA. 3.5. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a statement of objections along with counterclaim seeking to dismiss the claim, and also seeking a declaration that, their termination of agreements dated 17.07.2014 and 24.11.2017 vide their letter dated 31.12.2020 be held as valid and for return of all the original title documents. The arbitral tribunal passed the award on 10.10.2022, allowing - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 specific performance and declaring the termination notice as untenable, null and void. The said award was challenged before the City Civil Court, Commercial court, Bengaluru, bearing case No.26/2023, which is pending. The petitioner has not challenged the said award. Thus, it amounts to the petitioner accepting the finding of the learned Tribunal. It is contended that the demand for a fresh GPA is being executed as baseless, and there is already a GPA that was issued earlier. It is contended that the petition is not maintainable as the agreement and supplemental agreement are under challenge by respondents No.1 and 2, and the same is pending before City Civil (commercial court) Bengaluru. If the petition is allowed, it will be contradictory to the arbitration award dated 10.10.2022 and the appeal, which is pending for consideration, and leads to a multiplicity of the proceedings on the same contract/ agreement. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 4. Heard Sri. Dhananjay V. Joshi, learned senior counsel for Sri. Vachan H.U, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Jayna kothari, learned senior counsel for Sri. Naveen Chandra V., learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 and Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra executed an agreement dated 17.07.2014 and agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the petitioner, subject to the terms and conditions set out therein. The petitioner paid a substantial consideration amount. Respondent No.2 and Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner. Smt. Lalitha Devi Kabra passed away on 11.12.2015. The petitioner requested respondents No.1 and 3 to 10 to execute a fresh GPA. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 10 refused to execute a fresh GPA. 6. He submits that the respondents’ action and inaction towards the legal proceedings clearly show cause - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 the intention to deprive the petitioner of obtaining schedule ‘A’ properties or compensation therefrom. Despite receipt of the letter dated 22.12.2023, the respondents have not bothered to respond or comply with the request set out in the letter. The arbitration clause is provided in agreement of sale/supplemental agreement dated 24.11.2017 for seeking specific performance of their obligation to furnish the petitioner the General power of attorney on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 3 to 10. The petitioner issued an arbitration notice on 23.01.2024. The respondents have not bothered to respond. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition. Further, he has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in NTPC LIMITED VS. SPML INFRA LIMITED reported in (2023) (9) SCC 385 and GAMMON INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE DELHI 659. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 7. Per contra, Smt. Jayna Kothari, learned senior counsel for the respondents, submitted a written submissions and contended that, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, and she submitted that alleged dispute of the GPA was not raised by the petitioner in its statement of claim in arbitration being A.C.No.215/2021. The prayers in the statement of claim were only limited to (a) declaring the termination of agreements vide letter dated 30.01.2021 as being null and void; (b) directing the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute and register sale deeds for the 19 sites in schedule ‘B’ and (c) directing the respondents to execute and register sale deeds for last two sites in schedule ‘B’ when conveyed by BDA and for costs. 8. She submits that all the issues were existing disputes, when the previous arbitration was commenced in September 2021, and the petitioner has never raised in the said Arbitration. It is not open to the petitioner to - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 raise them, and seek for another arbitration. She has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DOLPHIN DRILLING LTD VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD reported in (2010) 3 SCC 267 and also the decision of the Delhi High Court in GAMMON INDIA LTD AND ANOTHER VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA reported in AIR 2020 DEL 132. She submits that in A.C.No.215/2021, the respondents have taken specific averments in the counterclaim, that the issues under two agreements should be decided, which includes the sale of properties that were under litigation and under KIADB acquisition, which is the subject matter of the present petition raised by the petitioner. 9. She submits that the Arbitral Tribunal has passed an award on 10.10.2022, and the said award was challenged before the learned City Civil Court (Commercial Court) Bengaluru, and the said proceedings were also dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2025. The appeal was filed in commercial A.P.No.160/2025, which is pending, - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 she submits that the petition filed by the petitioner is premature as the litigations are pending in separate suits in O.S.Nos.1180/2013 and 155/2013. If the petition is allowed, it will contradict Arbitral award dated 10.10.2022 and the appeal which is pending. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The point that arises for consideration, is as follows: ‘Whether the instant petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable in view of the earlier petition in CMP No.152/2021 filed for the appointment of an Arbitrator?’ 12. In the present case, a sale agreement dated 17.07.2014 was executed by Late Smt.Lalita Devi Kabla and respondent No.2 agreeing to sell the schedule properties in favour of the petitioner. In terms of the sale agreement, the petitioner paid substantial consideration - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 amount to late Smt.Lalita Devi Kabla and respondent No.2. Both executed a General power of attorney in favour of the petitioner authorizing the petitioner to take necessary steps to resolve encumbrances over the schedule property and to represent Late Smt.Lalita Devi Kabla and respondent No.2 in all legal proceedings concerning the schedule property. Smt.Lalita Devi Kabla passed away on 11.12.2015. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered into a supplemental agreement dated 24.11.2017 with the petitioner, confirming the terms and conditions of the principal agreement dated 17.07.2014 and also agreeing that upon receipt of the compensation from the BDA, the same would be conveyed/transferred to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 failed and neglected to convey the BDA sites to the petitioner. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and filed a petition in CMP.No.152/2021 before this Court for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The said petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2021 and constituted the Arbitral Tribunal for - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 resolution of a dispute arisen between the parties to the petition. 13. The petitioner filed a statement of claim in A.C.No.215/2021 before the Arbitral Tribunal. The respondents filed a statement of objections. The Arbitral tribunal, after recording evidence of both parties, passed an award on 10.10.2022. The claims put forth by the petitioner herein in the statement of claim are allowed with cost, and counterclaims put forth by respondents are dismissed with costs. Respondent No.2 challenged the Arbitral award in Comm.A.P.No.26/2023 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 14. The landowners filed suits in O.S.No.1180/2013 and O.S.No.1558/2013. The suits are pending adjudication in the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru and VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangalore, Rural District, Bangalore, respectively. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 26.11.2020, passed an order to reflect the names of the former land - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 owners subject to the outcome of the pending Civil Suit in O.S.No.1180/2013. The dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioner sent an email through counsel on 07.03.2023 and copy was sent to respondent No.1, calling upon respondent No.1 to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 15. The petitioner issued a notice dated 22.12.2023 calling upon the respondents to abide by the mutually accepted obligations under the principal agreement and furnish to Maya Tradelinks Limited an appropriate General power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.1, Shri.Kirti Kumar Kabla, as well as her siblings, thereby enabling Maya Tradelinks to take practical steps to contest the civil suits on behalf of both, and take other practical steps to secure the said land parcels. The respondents have not responded or complied with the requisitions set out in the letter dated 22.12.2023. The petitioner issued a letter dated 23.01.2024 invoking arbitration clause No.8 of the agreement of sale dated 24.11.2017 seeking for specific - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 performance of obligations there under, and to furnish to the petitioner a General Power of Attorney on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 3 to 10. The respondents have not responded to a letter dated 23.01.2024. 16. The chronology of facts above shows that the parties had nominated the Arbitral Tribunal, which adjudicated the claims of both the petitioner, and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in A.C.No.215/2021. The Arbitral Tribunal declared the termination of the agreements dated 17.07.2014 and 24.11.2017 by respondents on 30.01.2021, through notice is untenable; null and void, directed the respondents to execute the sale deeds and get them registered in favour of the petitioner herein regarding 19 awarded sites, which are described at item Nos.1 to 19 in schedule B of statement of claim for which the sale deeds have already been executed by BDA, within a period of 3 months from the date of the award, respondents are directed to execute and register the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner herein regarding the two - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 awarded sites viz, site bearing Nos.5544 and 5573 carved out in Sy.No.3 in Krishnasagara village, each measuring 360 Sq.meters and described at item Nos.20 and 21 of schedule B to SOC, within a period of two months from the date of BDA executing the sale deeds regarding these two sites in favour of respondent No.2. The counterclaim put forth by the respondents was dismissed with costs. 17. If the disputes have arisen, and the arbitration clause is to be invoked, at different stages; the petitioner ought to have raised all the claims, that have already arisen, on the date of invocation for the reference to arbitration. The petitioner had already invoked the arbitration clause. The remedy of arbitration is no longer available regarding the other disputes, that might arise in future. The judgment of GAMMON INDIA LTD (referred supra) is aptly applicable to the case on hand. 18. The Arbitral award dated 10.10.2022 was challenged in Com.A.A.No.26/2023 before the City Civil Court, Commercial Court, Bangalore, by the respondent - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 No.1. The Commercial A.A. was dismissed. The respondent preferred an appeal before this Court, which is pending adjudication. The case with similar issues has come up before the Delhi High Court in the case of the Gammon India ltd. and Others V/s National Highway Authority of India reported in 2020 SC online DEL 659 held as under "25. Filing of different claims at different stages of a contract or a project is thus permissible in law, inasmuch as the contract can be of a long duration and the parties may wish to seek adjudication of certain disputes, as and when they arise. Despite this permissibility, multiplicity ought to be avoided as discussed hereinafter". "26.The endeavour of Courts in the domain of civil litigation is always to ensure that claims of parties are adjudicated together, or if they involve overlapping issues, the subsequent suit is stayed until the decision in the first suit. It is with the intention of avoiding multiplicity that the principles enshrined in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, Section 10 CPC and Res Judicata are part of the Code of Civil Procedure from times immemorial. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 However, since arbitral proceedings are strictly not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is possible for parties to invoke arbitration as and when the disputes arise, but should the same be permissible without any limitation and ignoring the principles of public policy as enshrined in these provisions". "29. Multiple arbitrations can be of various categories: (i) Arbitrations and proceedings between the same parties under the same contract. (ii) Arbitrations and proceedings between the same parties arising from a set of contracts constituting one series, which bind them in a single legal relationship. (iii) Arbitrations and proceedings arising out of identical or similar contracts between one set of entities, wherein the other entity is common". "34. It is the settled position in law that the principles of res judicata apply to arbitral proceedings4. The observations of the Supreme Court in Dolphin (supra) also clearly show that principles akin to Order II Rule 2 CPC also apply to arbitral proceedings. The issue as to whether any claims are barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC or whether any claim is barred by res judicata is to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal and not by the Court 5. Keeping in mind the broad principles which are encapsulated in Order II Rule 2 CPC, as also Section 10 and Section 11 of the CPC, which would - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 by itself be inherent to the public policy of adjudication processes in India, it would be impermissible to allow claims to be raised at any stage and referred to multiple Arbitral Tribunals, sometimes resulting in multiplicity of proceedings as also contradictory awards. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that: K.V. George v. Secretary to Government, Water and Power Department, Trivandrum & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 53 Indian Oil Corporation v. SPS Engg. Co. Ltd, (2011) 3 SCC 507; Sam India Built Well (P) Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. [Arb. P. 106/17, decided on 8th September, 2017]; Parsvnath Developers Limited and Ors. v. Rail Land Development Authority [Arb. P. 724/18, decided on 31st October, 2018]; Parsvnath Developers Limited and Ors. v. Rail Land Development Authority [Arb. P. 710/19, decided on 19th May, 2020] i. In respect of a particular contract or a series of contracts that bind the parties in a legal relationship, the endeavour always ought to be to make one reference to one Arbitral Tribunal. The solution proposed by the Supreme Court (Aftab Alam, J.,) in paragraph 9 of Dolphin (supra) i.e., to draft arbitration clauses in a manner so as to ensure that claims are referred at one go and none of the claims are barred by limitation, may be borne in mind. The said observation in Dolphin (supra) reads: "9. The issue of financial burden caused by the arbitration proceedings is indeed a legitimate concern but the problem can only be remedied by suitably amending the arbitration clause. In future agreements, the arbitration clause can be recast making it clear that the remedy of arbitration can be - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 taken recourse to only once at the conclusion of the work under the agreement or at the termination/cancellation of the agreement and at the same time expressly saving any disputes/claims from becoming stale or time-barred etc. and for that reason alone being rendered non-arbitrable." ii. If under a contract, disputes have arisen and the arbitration clause is to be invoked, at different stages, the party invoking arbitration ought to raise all the claims that have already arisen on the date of invocation for reference to arbitration. It would not be permissible for the party to refer only some disputes that have arisen and not all. If a dispute and a claim thereunder has arisen as on the date of invocation and is not mentioned, either in the invocation letter or in the terms of reference, such claim ought to be held as being barred/waived, unless permitted to be raised by the Arbitral Tribunal for any legally justifiable/sustainable reasons. iii. If an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted for adjudicating some disputes under a particular contract or a series thereof, any further disputes which arise in respect of the same contract or the same series of contracts, ought to ordinarily be referred to the same Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal may pronounce separate awards in respect of the multiple references, however, since the Tribunal would be the same, the possibility of contradictory and irreconcilable findings would be avoided. iv. In cases belonging to Category (iii) involving different parties and the same organisation, where common/overlapping issues arise, an endeavor could be made as in the IRCTC cases (supra) to constitute the same Tribunal. If that is however not found feasible, at least challenges to the Awards rendered - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 could be heard together, if they are pending in the same Court. v. At the time of filing of petitions under Section 11 or Section 34 or any other provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specific disclosure ought to be made by parties as to the number of arbitration references, Arbitral Tribunals or court proceedings pending or adjudicated in respect of the same contract and if so, the stage of the said proceedings. vi. If there are multiple challenges pending in respect of awards arising out of the same contract, parties ought to bring the same to the notice of the Court adjudicating a particular challenge so that all the challenges can be adjudicated comprehensively at one go. This would ensure avoiding a situation as has arisen in the present case where Award Nos.1 and 3 have attained finality and the challenge to Award No.2 continued to remain pending. 19. A perusal of the aforesaid decision discloses that all disputes that are in existence when the arbitration clause is invoked ought to be raised, and referred at one go. In view of the above discussions, I answer the point for consideration in the negative. 20. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:16138 CMP No. 433 of 2024 ORDER The Civil Miscellaneous petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending consideration of IA’s does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE sks