- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7908 CMP No. 393 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 393 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. K.K. NANJAPPA, S/O. K. M. KARIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. MRS. LALITHA K.P. W/O. K. K. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BOTH R/AT SY. NO. 121, KENCHANAKUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI, MYSORE-BANGALORE MAIN ROAD, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 109. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.P. POOVANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. SANTHOSH SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, OFFICE AT 206/2A, 6TH CROSS, NAGAVARAPALYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 093. REPRESENTED MR. SREENIVASAN KEERANATTI THIMMARAYAN. 2. MR. SREENIVASAN KEERANATTI THIMMARAYAN, S/O. KEERANATTI THIMMARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7908 CMP No. 393 of 2024 3. MRS. BHAGYA RATHNA. M W/O. SREENIVASAN KEERANATTI THIMMARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2 AND 3 OFFICE AT NO. 206/2A, 6TH CROSS, NAGAVARAPALYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 093. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 11 (6-A) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER UNDER SECTION 11(6-A) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996. A APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE AND DIFFERENCES AMONGST THE PARTIES IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 16 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28.01.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE A EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENTS AND ETC., 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-A) 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 agreement to sale dated 28.01.2023 vide Annexure-B. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7908 CMP No. 393 of 2024 2. Respondents have appeared and engaged counsel and there is a contest to this petition by filing a statement of objections. 3. The petitioners, as agreement holders, have filed this petition alleging that they entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No. 1, having paid an advance sale consideration of 1,20,00,000. As per the agreement dated 28.01.2023, the respondents were required to deliver a villa that was to be constructed by the developer. The petitioners allege that, despite several requests, the respondents have failed to hand over the villa as agreed. 4. The respondents contend that a notice of cancellation was issued to the petitioners on 17.10.2023, offering to refund the amount within 100 days. In response, the petitioners served a counter-legal notice on 19.04.2024, calling upon the respondents to appoint an arbitrator for resolving the dispute. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7908 CMP No. 393 of 2024 5. Counsel for the respondents argues that the arbitration clause in the agreement is no longer applicable, as the agreement was cancelled through the notice issued by the respondents. Additionally, the respondents argue that, since respondent No. 1 is based in Mysore, the petition is not maintainable before the Bangalore Arbitration Center. They rely on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Duro Felguera S.A. vs. Gangavaram Port Limited [(2017) 9 SCC 729], which emphasizes that post the 2015 amendment, courts should only examine the existence of an arbitration agreement and nothing further. 6. The respondents’ argument that the cancellation of the agreement nullifies the arbitration clause is a matter for the arbitrator to decide during arbitration proceedings. This defense can be raised during the course of those proceedings. 7. In light of the aforementioned judgment, this Court’s role is limited to determining whether an arbitration clause exists and whether the petitioners have - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7908 CMP No. 393 of 2024 complied with the requirements under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Upon reviewing the annexures submitted with the civil miscellaneous petition, the Court finds that the petitioners have complied with the requirements under Section 11(4), and the existence of an arbitration clause is established. Whether this clause stands terminated following the cancellation of the agreement is an issue to be decided by the arbitrator. 8. In the light of the aforesaid clause of arbitration and the contentions advanced by the petitioners the following order is passed: ORDER (a) The petition is allowed appointing Shri Justice A.N.Venugopala Gowda, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7908 CMP No. 393 of 2024 (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 Centre and to Shri Justice A.N.Venugopala Gowda, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 15 CT: BHK