- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6662 CMP No. 470 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 470 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MRS. ARUNA P W/O B.R. CHANDRA SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 15, R.K. CLASSIC, FLAT NO. 301, 1ST MAIN, M.L.A LAYOUT, LOTTEGOLLALAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 094. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ADINATHA NARDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. RAMESH B GOWDA, S/O K BOMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 539, 12TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, RMV 2ND STAGE DOLLARS COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 094. 2. M/S. GREEN FARM TECH PVT. LTD., (COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT) NO. 325/1, 14TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, PLACE ORCHARD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6662 CMP No. 470 of 2023 MR. RAMESH B GOWDA …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SNEHA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION AND APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEREIN UNDER THE LEASE DEED DATED 04.11.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE B WHICH CONTAINS THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CLAUSE NO. 7. 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(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( for short, 'Act') seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute and difference between the parties herein in terms of clause 7 of the lease agreement dated 04.11.2019 vide Annexure-B. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6662 CMP No. 470 of 2023 2. The petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser of the property, contends that the property in question was originally leased by the vendor under a lease agreement dated 04.11.2019. Despite the attornment by the previous owner, respondents No.1 and 2 have allegedly failed to pay the outstanding rent legally due to the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that, although the respondents are aware of the sale transaction, they have defaulted in rent payments, thereby violating the terms of the lease agreement. Repeated requests made by the petitioner for payment of the outstanding rent have gone unanswered, leading to the issuance of a legal notice invoking the arbitration clause under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as evidenced by Annexure-G. 3. Following the notice, respondent No.1 engaged legal representation to contest the claim, whereas respondent No.2, a company, has chosen not to participate in the present proceedings. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6662 CMP No. 470 of 2023 4. The court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the petitioner and respondent No.1 and has carefully examined the records. 5. In response to the petition, respondent No.1 has disputed the validity of the sale deed dated 09.12.2022, executed in favor of the petitioner by the erstwhile owner, Surendra Babu B.L., contending that the deed is null and void. Additionally, respondent No.1 has questioned the petitioner's locus standi to invoke Clause 7 of the lease agreement dated 04.11.2019, arguing that, in the absence of a valid transfer of ownership, the petitioner has no lawful right to demand rent payments. 6. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the company is currently undergoing corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. Referring to Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, she contends that this provision imposes a moratorium, including a restriction under Section 14(1)(d) on initiating - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6662 CMP No. 470 of 2023 legal proceedings against leased property. Consequently, she argues that the petitioner is barred from invoking arbitration and that this court lacks jurisdiction under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Upon a careful review of the petition and accompanying annexures, this court is satisfied that the petitioner has met the requirements under Section 11(4) of the Act. The objection raised by respondent No.1 regarding their exclusion from arbitration proceedings, on the grounds that they were not a party to the lease agreement, is a matter to be determined by the arbitrator. Additionally, the argument that the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, is barred from invoking arbitration due to the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, also falls within the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to present all objections before the arbitrator. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6662 CMP No. 470 of 2023 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court, having satisfied in regard to the extension of the arbitration clause, proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (a) The petition is allowed appointing Shri Veeranna G Tigadi, Retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents and conduct proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre. (b) All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. (c) The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6662 CMP No. 470 of 2023 Centre and to Shri Veeranna G Tigadi, Retired District Judge, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK