- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3102 CMP No. 251 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 251 OF 2022 BETWEEN: M/S SAI RENIIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S DHIO BUILD TECH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1391/16/1, 19TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS HSR LAYOUT, 4TH SECTOR OPP: SHRISTI SCHOOL BENGALURU - 560 102 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K MUNIKRISHNAPPA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJU M K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M GIRISH DESHPET FORMERLY KNOWN AS GIRISH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O R MARI 2. SMT MANJULA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O LATE MALLAPPA SHETTY BOTH ARE R/AT LAKKUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MALUR TALUK Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3102 CMP No. 251 of 2022 KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130 …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS PER THE TERMS OF THE MOU DATED 13.05.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS NECESSARY UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 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(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) seeking the appointment of Sole Arbitrator by invoking Section 11(5) of the Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the documents annexed to the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3102 CMP No. 251 of 2022 3. This Court on an examination of records has noticed that the petitioner has not satisfied the ingredients of Section 11(5) of the Act. 4. This court in various judgments has emphasised the necessity of adhering to the procedural requirements stipulated under Section 11 of the Act, particularly concerning the appointment and notification of an arbitrator. 5. On a plain reading of the legal notice dated 20.0.2021, it is evident that the petitioner has merely conveyed an intention to invoke the arbitration clause embedded in the agreement between the parties. The notice does not, however, nominate or appoint an arbitrator or provide any concrete step towards constituting the arbitral tribunal. It states only the petitioner’s general intent to refer the disputes to arbitration, without fulfilling the procedural requirements outlined in Section 11(5). - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3102 CMP No. 251 of 2022 6. Upon closer scrutiny, this Court finds that the petitioner’s notice fails to meet the standard prescribed by Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Specifically, the petitioner’s failure to nominate or propose the appointment of an arbitrator, or to invite the respondent to concur in such an appointment, renders the notice deficient. In Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd1. , the Court emphasized the necessity of compliance with procedural prerequisites to ensure the proper invocation of the arbitration clause. Similarly, in Concorde Housing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. S.H. Puttaraju2, the Court underscored the requirement for clear communication regarding the appointment of an arbitrator as a condition precedent to seeking judicial intervention under Section 11. 7. In light of the foregoing, this Court concludes that the present petition is premature. The petitioner has 1 O.M.P.No.3/2015 2 CMP.No.198/2021 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3102 CMP No. 251 of 2022 not adequately invoked the arbitration clause in accordance with the statutory mandate. Consequently, the petition cannot be entertained at this stage. However, liberty is reserved for the petitioner to issue a fresh notice, in compliance with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and to approach this Court if the respondent fails to cooperate in the appointment of an arbitrator. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to issue a fresh notice in conformity with the Section 11(5) of the Act, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE BVK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2