- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 106 OF 2025 BETWEEN: B AND B INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED A COMPANY LIMITED BY LIABILITY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT #37, 4TH CROSS, Additional Government Advocate ABBAS AL: ROAD ULSOOR, BANGALORE – 560 042 NOW AT ORBIS, 4TH FLOOR, #61, 2ND CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE 560025 - HEREIN REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY S.K. BHASKAR RAJU, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O SRI NARASA RAJU S.K. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S GANESH SHENOY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. L S K PROJECTS PVT. LTD., #16, SAI NIVAS, 3RD FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, SANTHRUPTHINAGAR, J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE 560 078. 2. MR. L. SATEESH KUMAR, S/O LOKARAJU, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, M/S. LSK PROJECTS PVT. LTD, #16, SAI NIVAS, 3RD FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, SANTHRUPTHINAGAR, J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE 560 078 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. IMRAN PASHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO, APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR FROM THE PANEL ARBITRATORS OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE No.45.1 R/W 25.1 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.03.2016 (ANNEXURE A) BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AND ALLOW COSTS OF THIS PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RENDER JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking for the appointment of the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 45 read with Clause 25.1 of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 Contract Agreement dated 11.03.2016, vide Annexure “A”. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 3. It is stated that, the petitioner and the respondents entered into a Contract Agreement dated 11.03.2016, in furtherance to a tender, called for, by M/s.A.N.Prakash Construction Project Management Consultants Pvt.Ltd., on behalf of the petitioner, regarding the construction of the project named, “OPULENT ASPIRE” in the property situated at Site No.4, Ward No.64, Bannerghatta Main Road, Jayanagar, Bangalore. It is stated that, in terms of contract, the petitioner used to release the funds for the certification of the running bills issued by the respondent. However, certain disputes arose regarding the work carried out by the respondents No1. It is stated that, M/s A.N.Prakash Construction - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 Project Management Consultations Pvt.Ltd. vide communication dated 23.07.2021 revealed that an excess of Rs.2,51,75,452/- has been made on account of respondent No.1 by the petitioner. Respondents were requested to make good of the sum. The same led to filing of a complaint at Tilak Nagar Police Station on 13.08.2021. The respondents issued the cheques to make good of the legally recoverable dues. The cheques were returned dishonoured. The petitioner issued a notice dated 06.09.2021 calling upon the respondents to pay the sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- under the cheques. The respondents issued a notice by giving an untenable and evasive reply on 08.09.2021 and did not comply with the demands. Furthermore, the petitioner filed a complaint in C.C. No.56780/2021, and the same is pending trial. It is contended that the respondents have not performed 50% of the work even after twice the tender period. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 4. The respondents issued another notice on 08.06.2022 nominating Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat as their Arbitrator and called upon the petitioner to appoint their arbitrator. In turn, the petitioner issued a reply dated 05.07.2022 nominating Sri.L.V.Sreerangraju as their Arbitrator and called upon the respondent to concur with the same. Further, the respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.871/2023 praying that the petitioner be directed not to develop the property in question, and therein, the petitioner filed an application under Section 8 of the Act, in the said suit, bringing the existence of an arbitration clause to the Court’s notice. Furthermore, the respondents filed a private complaint in PCR No.10953/2023 against the petitioner, and its Directors, making false allegations before the Court of CMM, Bangalore. The respondents are avoiding the arbitral process by disputing the petitioner’s claim and the appointment - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 of the arbitrator made by the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Contract Agreement, between the petitioner and the respondents, has been entered into, on 11.03.2016 regarding the construction of “OPULENT ASPIRE”. He submits that, the dispute arose between the parties relating to the excess payments made by the petitioner to the respondents regarding the construction work. The petitioner filed a complaint, and issued a notice calling upon the respondents to pay the dues. Subsequently, the respondent invoked an arbitration clause by issuing the arbitration notice nominating an arbitrator and in turn the petitioner issued a notice nominating his arbitrator and asked the respondent to concur with - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 the same. There exists an arbitration clause and the dispute has to be resolved by an arbitration. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents objects to the petition on merits, and prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the disputes between the parties to the petition to the Arbitrator in terms of clause 45 read with Clause 25.1 of the contract agreement dated 11.03.2016 vide annexure A, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Rules? ” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 10. There is no dispute regarding the contract agreement dated 11.03.2016 entered between the petitioner and the respondents. The dispute has arisen between the parties to the petition regarding the excess payment to the tune of Rs.2,51,75,452/- made by the petitioner. The petitioner issued a notice dated 06.09.2021 calling upon the respondent to pay the dues. The respondents did not come forward to pay the dues. The petitioner and the respondents invoked the arbitration clause by their distinct notices nominating their arbitrators. The Contract Agreement dated 11.04.2016 contains an arbitral clause, at clause 45, which reads as under: “45. RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES / ARBITRATION The Client and the contractor shall make every effort to resolve amicably by direct informal negotiations any disagreement or - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 dispute arising between them under or in connection with the contract. In reference of any dispute to arbitration in accordance with this agreement shall be affect the performance by the Parties of their respective obligations under this Agreement other than the obligations relating to the dispute referred to arbitration. 45.1 Arbitration: The event of the parties fails to resolve any dispute amicably the same shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, as is prevalent in India. Each party shall be entitled to nominate an arbitrator & the two arbitrators so nominated shall jointly nominate the third arbitrator. The arbitrators shall give a reasoned award. The parties further agree that any arbitration award shall be final & binding upon the parties. The venue of arbitration proceedings shall be in Bengaluru. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 It is also a term of this contract that if the contractor does not make any demand for appointment of arbitrator in respect of claims in writing within 90 days of receiving the intimation that his final bill is ready for payment, the claim of the contractor will be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the Client shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract, in respect of the claims. Each party to the arbitration shall bear and pay their own cost and expenses.” 11. From the bare reading of the arbitration clause , it is evident that, if the parties failed to resolve the dispute amicably, the dispute shall be referred to Arbitration. 12. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause and the arbitral dispute arose between the parties to the petition. The dispute must be resolved through Arbitration in terms of the aforementioned clause. Thus, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 the dispute to an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 45.1 read with Clause 25.1 of the Contract Agreement dated 11.03.2016. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (ii) Hon’ble Sri. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy, Former Judge, High court of Karnataka and Hon’ble Sri. Justice K.Bhakthavatsala, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, are nominated as Arbitrators and they shall jointly nominate the third Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties to the petition, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25031 CMP No. 106 of 2025 (iii) The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bengaluru. (iv) The Office is directed to return the original documents, if any, to the petitioner, after retaining a photocopy of the same. (v) In view of the disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK(online) CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19