- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4551 CMP No. 14 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.14 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. J SONS DEVELOPERS THE SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP AND IS REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR.NAVEED MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS HAVING ADDRESS AT NO.1184, C CROSS 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560041 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VAMSHI KRISHNA C, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S.UMRAH DEVELOPERS A PROPRIETORSHIP REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR.YUSUF SHERIFF @ D.BABU NO.22/1, KAVERIYAPPA LAYOUT MILLER'S TANK BUND ROAD VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU - 560052 …RESPONDENT (SERVED) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING THAT Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4551 CMP No. 14 of 2024 THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO APPOINT HONBLE SRI. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT, RETD., FORMER JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HAVING ADDRESS AT NO.234, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, I BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034, AS A SOLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 21.1 OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 16/10/2012, (ANNEXURE-B) TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN PARTIES AND ALSO PASS SUCH OTHER DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, 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 '1996 Act') seeking to appoint Sri. Justice P.Krishna Bhat, Retd. Former Judge of this Court as sole Arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Clause No.21.1 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 16.10.2012 to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondent. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4551 CMP No. 14 of 2024 2. On issuance of notice to the respondent, the respondent has not chosen to contest the proceedings. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court by relying upon the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) executed on 16.10.2012. The primary grievance of the petitioner pertains to the alleged financial losses suffered due to the respondent's failure to fulfill contractual obligations as stipulated in the said agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was in breach of Clause 5.4 of the JDA, which imposed a specific obligation upon the respondent to execute either a Supplemental Joint Development Agreement or an Area Allocation Agreement. The failure of the respondent to adhere to this essential contractual requirement has, according to the petitioner, caused significant financial hardship and loss. Furthermore, the petitioner has placed reliance on the Arbitral Award rendered by the duly appointed Arbitrator, which, as per the petitioner, has adjudicated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4551 CMP No. 14 of 2024 upon the contractual violations and upheld the petitioner's claims. 4. In light of the respondent’s failure to comply with Clause 5.4 of the JDA, the petitioner invoked the arbitration mechanism available under the agreement. A notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act") was issued by the petitioner, thereby invoking the Arbitration Clause and nominating an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising between the parties. Consequently, arbitration proceedings were initiated, and an award was passed in favor of the petitioner. It is significant to note that the said Arbitral Award has not yet been subjected to any challenge in an Arbitral Suit, although a suit is currently pending consideration before the City Civil Court. The petitioner emphasizes that despite the existence of an Arbitral Award, the matter remains contested, thereby prolonging the dispute and imposing the financial burden on the petitioner. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4551 CMP No. 14 of 2024 5. The petitioner further asserts that under Clause 10.1 of the JDA, which provides for indemnification, the respondent is legally bound to compensate for the losses suffered due to the respondent's breaches and non- performance of contractual obligations. The petitioner contends that the respondent's actions, including the failure to execute the necessary agreements as required under Clause 5.4, have directly resulted in substantial financial losses. Furthermore, despite the existence of a favorable Arbitral Award, the petitioner finds himself embroiled in continued legal proceedings, which have led to additional litigation costs and financial hardship. The prolonged contestation of the award and the respondent’s failure to comply with its contractual and legal obligations have, according to the petitioner, escalated the financial losses already suffered. 6. Notably, the respondent has neither contested the notice issued by the petitioner under Section 21 of the 1996 Act, nor has the respondent raised any opposition to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4551 CMP No. 14 of 2024 the nomination of the Arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings. Furthermore, there has been no contest to the present petition filed by the petitioner. The absence of any resistance from the respondent, as per the petitioner, serves as an implicit acknowledgment of the claims raised and the obligations arising under the contract. Consequently, the petitioner contends that the respondent's inaction and failure to respond further substantiate the necessity for this Court’s intervention. 7. This Court has thoroughly examined the contents of the petition and carefully scrutinized the annexures submitted alongside. Upon such examination, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has complied with all procedural and substantive requirements as stipulated under Section 11(4) of 'the Act'. The petitioner has duly invoked the arbitration mechanism in accordance with the Agreement and has fulfilled all necessary preconditions for seeking the intervention of this Court to appoint an Arbitrator. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4551 CMP No. 14 of 2024 8. In the light of the above said arbitration Clause and in absence of contest by the respondent, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, appointing Sri.Justice P.Krishna Bhat, retired Former Judge of this Court, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondent in terms of the Clause 21.1 of the Joint Development Appointment dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure-B) to the petition. (ii) All contentions are kept open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. (iii) The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and Sri.Justice P.Krishna Bhat, retired Former Judge of this Court, as required under the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4551 CMP No. 14 of 2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5