- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13867 CMP No. 495 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 495 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C. GOPAL RAJU AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O LATE C. NARASARAJU R/AT VARADARAJUPURAM KARLAMBAKKAM POST, PALLIPAT TALUK THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT-602 001. TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI. C. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SRI C. GOPAL RAJU R/AT NO. 5, FIRST FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR 1ST STAGE BENGALURU-560 038. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL .P.P, ADVOCATE [THROUGH V.C.]) AND: 1. SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O LATE BACHANNA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS 2. SRI. B. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE BACHANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13867 CMP No. 495 of 2023 3. SMT. SUMITHRA W/O B. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT NO. 108 4TH MAIN, G.M PALYA NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 075. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHIDANANDA .P, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 R/W CLAUSE 2 OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A RETIRED JUDGE OF HONBLE DISTRICT COURT AS SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE–A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 (herein after ‘the Act of 1996’) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents as per clause 13 of the Agreement for Joint Development dated 22.07.2016 Vide Annexure- A. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13867 CMP No. 495 of 2023 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: Respondents No.1 to 3 entered into an agreement for Joint Development, dated 22.07.2016, with the petitioner offering properties mentioned therein for development as they thought that the same would benefit them and their family members. The parties to the said agreement have subjected themselves to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The respondents failed to fulfil their part of the obligations and also had suppressed ongoing litigation on the subject properties. When such is the situation, the respondents themselves, acting in contravention to the terms of the said agreement, unilaterally terminated the said agreement and also forfeited the amount paid by the petitioner, illegally. The respondents unilaterally terminated the agreement and filed an application before the trial court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, seeking for an interim relief, in Com. Arbitration Application No.5002/2023. The trial court was pleased to pass the order of status quo. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13867 CMP No. 495 of 2023 3. The petitioner issued an arbitration notice, suggesting the name of the Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute, which was duly served. The respondents denied the suggestion in the reply to the arbitration notice and have taken various untenable stand in the said reply; as such, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition. 4. The respondents did not file a statement of objection. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits no objection to allowing the petition and appointment of an Arbitrator, to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of clause 13 of the Agreement to Joint Development deed dated 22.07.2016. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The point that arises for consideration is as follows: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13867 CMP No. 495 of 2023 “Whether the petitioner has made a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of clause 13 of the Agreement to the Joint Development dated 22.07.2016. 8. There is no dispute regarding to the execution of the Joint Development agreement dated 22.07.2016 between the petitioner and the respondents. It is alleged that the respondents acted in contravention of the terms of the said agreement and, unilaterally terminated the agreement and forfeited the amount paid by the petitioner, illegally. The respondents approached the trial court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 in A.A.No.5002/2023, seeking an interim relief. The trial court passed an order of status quo. The petitioner issued an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act of 1996, dated 23.09.2023, suggesting the name of the Arbitrator. The respondents disagreed with the suggestion made by the petitioner regarding the appointment of an arbitrator and issued a reply notice dated 08.11.2023, denying the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13867 CMP No. 495 of 2023 appointment of an arbitrator. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause 13, which reads as follows: 13. The parties agree that in the event of there being any disputes with regards to this agreement or interpretation of any of the terms of this agreement, the same shall be referred to the Arbitration, and Arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 9. From the perusal of clause 13, if any disputes arise regarding the agreement or interpretation of any of the terms of the agreement, same shall be referred to the Arbitration, and the Arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Act of 1996. Admittedly a dispute has arisen between the parties to the petition. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits no objection to appoint an Arbitrator, to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made a ground to refer the matter to the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. In view of the above - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13867 CMP No. 495 of 2023 discussion, 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. Smt. Justice Rathnakala, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. iii. The office is directed to communicate this order to Smt. Justice Rathnakala, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and the Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bengaluru. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE sks