- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48375 CMP No. 544 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 544 OF 2024 BETWEEN: KRANTHI KUMAR PRATHIPATI SON OF SRI ANJANEYULU PRATHIPATI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.67, 3RD CROSS, RK GARDENS, BEHIND GOWRI APARTMENTS, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE 560 054 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: V.KRISHNAPPA SON OF SRI VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GANTIGANAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT 561205. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MITHUN G A, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO A) APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT UNDER AGREEMENT OF SALE DEED MARCH 13, 2015, AT ANNEXURE A, AS EXTENDED UNDER THE RECEIPT CUM ENDORSEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 07, 2015, AT ANNEXURE B, AND REFER THE PARTIES TO ARBITRATION THROUGH SUCH ARBITRATOR AND ARBITRATION CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ARBITRATION CLAUSE 10.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48375 CMP No. 544 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief’s; a) Appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent under agreement of sale deed march 13, 2015, at annexure a, as extended under the receipt cum endorsement dated November 07, 2015, at Annexure B, and refer the parties to arbitration through such arbitrator and arbitration conciliation act, 1996 arbitration clause 10.1. b) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner and respondent had entered into an agreement of sale dated 13.03.2015, agreeing to sell the property subject matter of the said agreement. Contending that, the respondent has not executed a sale deed and there is a dispute which has arisen between the petitioner and the respondent, petitioner had issued a notice on 16.10.2024, nominating three arbitrators and calling upon the respondent to agree to any one of them in order to proceed with the arbitration. The notice having been served on the respondent, the respondent having not replied to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48375 CMP No. 544 of 2024 same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The submission of Sri.S.V.Bhat., learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the agreement dated 13.03.2015 there is a dispute as regards the execution of sale deed by the respondent, the petitioner intending to initiate proceeding for Specific Performance by way of arbitration, a notice has been issued on 16.10.2024, which has not been acceded to by the respondents. 4. Though, learned counsel for the respondent has taken up various contentions as regards the petition being barred by limitation and the document being a fraudulent document, etc., what would be required to be seen by this Court is as to whether there is a claim for specific performance which is maintainable by the petitioner, inasmuch as Clause 9.1 has been stuck off, which before being struck of read as under; 9.1 In the event of breach of the terms of this Agreement by either party, the aggrieved party shall be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48375 CMP No. 544 of 2024 entitled for specific performance of this Agreement by institution of legal proceedings and/or at their option may recovery of the money paid as on that day along with 12% p.a. 5. The above would indicate that, though there was an initial Clause present in the agreement that either party would be entitled to seek for specific performance, the said Clause having been struck off, it is clear that neither of the parties can claim for specific performance. 6. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said Clause has been stuck off unilaterally by the respondent, the fact remains that the respondent has not agreed to a Clause in the agreement entitling specific performance to either of the parties. 7. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that he would seek to refer the matter to an arbitrator for seeking a relief for specific performance cannot be sustained, once Clause 9.1 has been deleted. Suffice it to say - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48375 CMP No. 544 of 2024 Petitioner cannot seek for a relief of Specific Performance in the Arbitral Proceedings. 8. Clause 9.2 provides for the petitioner to seek a refund of the money and damages as a consequence of any breach. It is only the said remedy that the petitioner could be entitled to claim for, once the matter is referred to the arbitration. 9. There being no particular dispute as regards the existence of the arbitration Clause, I am of the considered opinion that the matter, insofar as refund of the monies is required, can be referred to arbitration. As such, I pass the following; ORDER i. CMP is allowed. ii. Smt. Premavathi Managoli., a former District Judge of the District Judiciary, State of Karnataka is appointed as a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48375 CMP No. 544 of 2024 the aegis of the Arbitration Centre attached to this Court. iii. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director, Arbitration & Conciliation Centre for doing the needful. iv. Since the order is passed in the presence of both the counsels, the counsels are directed to appear before the Director, Arbitration & Conciliation Centre without the requirement of any notice at 2.30 p.m. on 10.12.2025. v. All contentions, including that of limitation, are kept open. vi. Original and/or certified copies, if produced, are directed to be returned to the respective parties who have produced/them by following due procedure. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39