- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22799 CMP No. 490 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 490 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. A. VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE H APPAYYA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.21, APPAJI NILAYA, CANARA BANK COLONY, UTTARAHALLI, OPP: TO KARNATAKA BANK LTD., BENGALURU-560061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAIK N R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAMAIAH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. SRI. G R NARASIMHAIAH S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. SRI. G R VENKATESH S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE R/OF GANGARAJANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22799 CMP No. 490 of 2024 BY SRI. YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H., ADVOCATE) THIS CMP IS FILED U/S.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN ARBITRATOR AS NOMINATED UNDER THE STATUTORY NOTICES DATED 13.07.2023 AND 14.07.2023 WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VIDE ANNESURE-J1 TO J6 FOR RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS UNDER THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 19.07.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, THE ARBOTRATOR IS INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE CLAUSE 15 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, 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 to the petition in terms of clause 15 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 19.07.2013, vide Annexure-B. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22799 CMP No. 490 of 2024 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The petitioner and the respondents have executed the Joint Development Agreement (‘the JDA’ for brevity) on 19.07.2013. The dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondents regarding the terms of the JDA. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.58/2020 for a relief of perpetual injunction. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.06.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in the JDA by issuing a notice to the respondents. The respondents did not agree to the arbitration proceedings. The petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition in CMP No.319/2023. The said petition was disposed of with a liberty to file a fresh petition, if the occasion so arises. After the disposal of the CMP, the petitioner got issued an arbitration notice on 21.06.2024 vide Annexure-M for proposing the name of the arbitrator. The respondents replied to the arbitration notice on 09.07.2024, wherein they raised several grounds - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22799 CMP No. 490 of 2024 in the reply notice, but did not concur with the appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, this petition. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a statement of objections. It is contended that the JDA was executed in 2013, and the suit was filed in 2020. The petitioner has already invoked an arbitration clause by filing a petition in CMP No.319/2023, and contended that there is no cause of action to file a petition seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondents have entered into the Joint Development Agreement and the respondents did not fulfil the terms and conditions of the JDA. The dispute arose between the petitioner and respondents and there is an arbitration clause in the JDA. He also submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in CMP - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22799 CMP No. 490 of 2024 No.319/2023, and a liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. The petitioner issued an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents replied to the arbitration notice, but did not agree to resolve the dispute through the arbitration. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation. He also submits that before filing of the CMP, the petitioner had filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.58/2020, and the said suit was dismissed. He submits that the petitioner is filing the suit, petition after petition, and he is abusing the process of law. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The point that arises for consideration is as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22799 CMP No. 490 of 2024 “Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitrator in terms of clause No.15 of the JDA dated 19.07.2013, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules?” 9. There is no dispute regarding the execution of the Joint Development Agreement between the parties to the petition. The dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.58/2020 for the relief of a perpetual injunction. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.06.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a legal notice on 13.07.2023, calling upon the respondents to perform their part of the agreement and a notice was also issued to file arbitration proceedings before the arbitration. The said notice was served to respondent No.1. The respondents denied the contents of the legal notice dated 13.07.2023. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in CMP - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22799 CMP No. 490 of 2024 No.319/2023. This Court vide order dated 28.08.2023, observed that the petitioner has not invited consensus from the respondent on the appointment of any particular person as the sole Arbitrator. This would be required in terms of provision of Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, if the occasion so arises. After the disposal of the CMP, the petitioner issued an arbitration notice dated 21.06.2024, wherein the petitioner has called upon the respondents to give a consent for appointment of an arbitrator. The respondents replied to the arbitration notice on 09.07.2024, vide Annexure-N. 10. Admittedly, the arbitral dispute arises between the parties to the petition and there is an arbitration clause. The dispute between the parties to the petition must be resolved through arbitration. The petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22799 CMP No. 490 of 2024 Thus, in view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. ii. Sri. Rajmohan Srivatsava, learned District Judge (Retired), is nominated as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in accordance with clause No.15 of the Joint Development Agreement and as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules. iii. All contentions of the parties are kept open, including the limitation. iv. The office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator and the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22799 CMP No. 490 of 2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS