- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14484 CMP No. 503 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 503 OF 2024 BETWEEN: VINODA H SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O SRI. HARISHCHANDRA SHETTY, R/AT NO. 8/A, 24TH MAIN ROAD, JP NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SKANDA ARUNKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SUNEEL KUMAR SURIMANI S/O VENKATA RATHNAM SURIMANI, RESIDNG AT NO. 1 AND 2, IKYA GREENS, FLAT NO. L3B, 9TH G MAIN, HRBR LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK, BANASWADI-560045. BANGALORE. 2. PRASHANTH KAMMAMPATI S/O BALASUNDARAM KAMMAMPATI, RESIDING AT NO.1 AND 2, IKYA GREENS, FLAT NO. L3B, 9TH G MAIN, HRBR LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK, BANASWADI-560045 BANGALORE. 3. NAVEEN N.J. S/O N. JAYARAM, RESIDING AT NO. 15/1, VENKATARAMAN LAYOUT, POST OFFICE ROAD, MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560033 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14484 CMP No. 503 of 2024 4. YATISH. N.J. SON OF N. JAYARAM, RESIDING AT NO.15/1, VENKATARAMAN LAYOUT, POST OFFICE ROAD, MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560033 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VARSHA HITTIN HALLI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) READ WITH SECTION 11 (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO A) APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR WITH DIRECTION TO ENTER REFERENCE IN TERMS OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 29.07.2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A AND AS PER THE ARBITRATION NOTICE DATED 29.07.2024 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER AS A ANNEXURE C AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT B) APPOINT EITHER ARBITRATION CENTRE-BENGALURU OR SUCH OTHER INSTITUTION AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AS THE ARBITRAL INSTITUTION TO CONDUCT THE SAID ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 (‘the Act, 1996’ for brevity) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14484 CMP No. 503 of 2024 clause 15 of the Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU' for brevity) dated 29.07.2017 produced vide Annexure-A. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:- The respondents approached the petitioner, with a proposal to construct a commercial cum residential building in the suit property. Thus, based on the agreed terms, the petitioner, on 14.06.2017 executed two registered sale deeds in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 and respondents No.3 and 4, respectively. A separate Memorandum of Understanding was entered between the petitioner and the respondents on 29.07.2017, wherein it was agreed that the petitioner’s share in the constructed property would be handed over to him, after completion of the construction as per the terms of the MOU on or before 24 months from the date of handing over of the schedule property by the petitioner to the respondents. The petitioner addressed the letter to the respondents on 12.07.2019, raising the grievance faced by the petitioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14484 CMP No. 503 of 2024 due to the pace of work carried out by the respondents. The respondents replied to the letter dated 12.07.2019 vide response dated 18.07.2019. 2.1. The petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondents to complete the construction work vide notice dated 09.11.2021. The respondents issued a vague reply notice on 13.03.2022. However, the respondents have not undertaken any activities to complete the unfinished construction works. The petitioner invoked an arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice on 29.07.2024. The arbitration notice was served to the respondents. The respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition. 3. The respondents filed a statement of objections admitting the execution of the MOU dated 29.07.2017. It is contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as the petitioner has failed to produce the original arbitration agreement, and hence, pray to dismiss the petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14484 CMP No. 503 of 2024 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondents entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 29.07.2017. The respondents did not perform their part of the contract in terms of MOU. A dispute arises between the parties to the petition. Any dispute or differences between the parties shall be referred to the Arbitration consisting of a sole Arbitrator. He submits that the petitioner issued an arbitration notice to the respondent via Annexure-B. The respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. He submits that there is an arbitration clause in the MOU dated 29.07.2017 and prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not produced the original MOU and submits that the MOU is not properly stamped and the said document is inadmissible. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14484 CMP No. 503 of 2024 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is as follows: - “Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties in terms of clause 15 of the MOU dated 29.07.2017?” 8. There is no dispute that the petitioner and the respondents have entered into the registered sale deeds dated 14.06.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner and the respondents entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 29.07.2017, wherein it was agreed that the petitioner’s share in the constructed property should be completed and handed over in terms of MOU on or before 24 months from the date of handing over of the schedule property. The petitioner did not handed over the possession of the schedule property to the respondents. The respondents did not proceed with the construction work in terms of MOU. The petitioner has raised the grievance faced by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14484 CMP No. 503 of 2024 him vide letter dated 12.07.2019. The respondents replied to the letter, admitting the list of pending works. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the respondents’ explanation in reply dated 18.07.2019, issued a legal notice calling upon the respondents to complete the construction work within the stipulated period. The respondents replied to the legal notice and failed to undertake the construction activities on the second and third floors. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the respondents work, has invoked the arbitration clause, by issuing an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act, 1996 vide letter dated 29.07.2024 vide Annexure-B. 9. I have perused the Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.07.2017 that there is an Arbitration clause i.e., clause 15, which reads as follows: 15. In case any dispute or difference should arise between the parties hereto, the same shall be referred to arbitration consisting of a sole arbitrator appointed by the consent of first party and second party, who shall deal with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14484 CMP No. 503 of 2024 1996, or any statutory modification thereof. The award of the Arbitrator or Arbitrators as the case may be, shall be final and binding on the parties. 10. The dispute arose between the petitioner and respondents regarding the terms of the MOU dated 29.07.2017; the dispute is to be resolved through an arbitration. Though the respondents have filed a statement of objections, they have not denied the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding and an arbitration clause. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out the grounds to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. ii. Hon’ble Justice Sri. P.N.Desai, Former Judge, the High Court of Karnataka is appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14484 CMP No. 503 of 2024 parties as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Concilication Act, 1996. iii. The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Cantre, Bengaluru. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS