- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11431 CMP No. 100001 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL MISC PETITION NO. 100001 OF 2021 BETWEEN: ANNAJI GOWDA S/O. MALLIKARJUNAPPA GOWDA, RESIDING AT GUDAVI VILLAGE, SORABA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. WEST COAST PAPER MILL LTD BANGUR NAGAR, DANDELI, HALIYALA TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT PROPOSED LR’S OF PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.2 2A) HONNAPPAGOUDA S/O. LATE SHIVASHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ANAVATTI HOBALI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT. 2B) SMT. KUSMA W/O. BASAVARAJGOUDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, CHANDRAGUTHI HOBALI, HOSAKOPPA VILLAGE, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.15 10:43:30 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11431 CMP No. 100001 of 2021 2C) SHASHIDARGOUDA S/O. LATE SHIVASHANKARAPPA AGED AABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT. 2D) MRUTYUNJAYA GOUDA @ MUTTUGOUDA S/O. LATE SHIVASHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ANAVATTI HOBALI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT. 2E) SHOBHAVATHI W/O. SHIVAKUMARGOUDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, HARTHAL VILLAGE HOSANAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT. 2f) PUTTARAJUGOUDA S/O. LATE SHIVASHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ANAVATTI HOBALI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT. 3. NAGARATNAMMA GOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 3a) HEMANTH GOWDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: AT POST: GUDALU, SORABA TALUK, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA. 3b) SUMANTH GOWDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: AT POST: GUDALU, SORABA TALUK, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA. (AS PER THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2025, RESPONDENTS NO.2(A) TO 2(F) AND 3(A) AND 3(B) ARE CAME ON RECORD AND AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 20.08.2025 RESPONDENTS NO.2(A) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11431 CMP No. 100001 of 2021 TO 2(F) AND 3(A) AND 3(B) ARE DELETED) 4. SHIVANAND GOWDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: GUDAVI VILLAGE, SORABA TALUK, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; RESPONDENTS NO. 2(A) TO 2(F) AND 3(A) AND 3(B)- DELETED) (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT No.4) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, PRAYING THAT AN ARBITRATOR BE APPOINTED AS PER CLAUSE 16 OF AGREEMENT DATED 17.03.2008 WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER INTO REFERENCE, COMPLETE THE PROCEEDINGS AND GIVE THE AWARD WITHIN SUCH TIME AS THIS COURT WILL BE PLEASED TO DETERMINE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) This petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is filed seeking to appoint an Arbitrator as per clause 16 of the Agreement dated 17.03.2008 with directions to enter into reference, complete the proceedings and give the Award. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11431 CMP No. 100001 of 2021 2. The respondent entered appearance through his counsel and filed his statement of objections contending that the respondent is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing papers. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner, along with three others, have entered into an agreement with the respondent for growing of pulpwood, under which the petitioner and others had agreed to grow pulpwood in waste lands and sell the same to this respondent at the rate of Rs.800/- per metric tonne. 4. It is submitted that respondent does not dispute that the petitioner along with three others have grown pulpwood and sold to this respondent. However, while payment of the remuneration is concerned, since there are other three persons along with the petitioner, who are entitled for the same, this respondent is not in a position to disburse the amount, unless all the parties come forward and put up their respective claims. 5. It is submitted that, since the present respondent is not disputing the execution of the agreement, it cannot be said that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11431 CMP No. 100001 of 2021 there is a dispute between the petitioner and this respondent. It is submitted that since all the parties have not come forward to collect the amount, the petitioner is unable to disburse the same. The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the said amount of Rs.7,19,284/- or the 1/4th share of the petitioner before this Court. 6. The respondent has been ready and willing to pay to the petitioner and to others the amount payable under the agreement. However, in view of the difference of opinion between the petitioner and other three signatories to the agreement, the petitioner and others have not come forward to collect the amount from the respondent. 7. The respondent vide its reply letter dated 13.05.2019 intimated the petitioner to settle the inter-se dispute amongst his family members and other signatories so as to enable the respondent to pay the amount accordingly. Further, it is submitted that unless the petitioner gets his inter-se dispute resolved with the other signatories, even if the respondent is ready to disburse the amount, the petitioner would be disabled from doing so in order to avoid any further disputes that would - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11431 CMP No. 100001 of 2021 be raised by the other parties. There are several others who are claiming rights under the agreement and as such without impleading them as necessary parties, the dispute, if any, between the parties cannot be resolved. There is no dispute between the petitioner and the respondent so as to refer the same for resolution to an Arbitrator. Secondly, unless all the parties are arraigned and made parties to the proceedings, the dispute, if any, cannot be resolved as the same would amount to non-joinder of necessary parties, which may further result in multiplicity of proceedings. On all these grounds sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner during course of the argument that petitioner has claimed 1/3rd share, but the respondent is ready to deposit 1/4th share. Hence, that has to be resolved by the Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated the averments made in the statement of objections. 9. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the Agreement dated 17.03.2008. The condition at paragraph No.16 of the agreement reads as under : - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11431 CMP No. 100001 of 2021 “16. That if any dispute, difference of opinion or question arises at any time hereinafter between the parties hereto over the interpretation of any of the terms and conditions of this Contract, the same shall be referred to Arbitrators, one each to be appointed by both the parties and the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1949 or any statutory modifications or re-enactments thereof for the time being in force shall apply to such reference and further all such the arbitration proceedings shall be conducted within local jurisdiction of the Uttara Kannada District.” 10. Though there is a clause to refer the matter to the Arbitrators’, now both counsels submit that one Arbitrator is sufficient to adjudicate the matter in dispute. The argument advanced on behalf of respondent cannot be accepted at this stage, as this Court has already passed an order in this regard on 20.08.2025. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed. (ii) At the request of learned counsels for both sides, Advocate and Retired District and Sessions Judge Sri H.R.Deshpande, Shri Kamala, HIG-76, III Main, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11431 CMP No. 100001 of 2021 8th ‘E’ Cross’ KHB Colony, Lakkamanahalli, II stage, Vidyagiri, Dharwad-580 004 (Mob No.9480428151) is appointed as sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. (iii) The respondent is permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.7,19,284/- as stated in paragraph No.5 of the statement of objections, before this Court. (iv) Registry is directed to deposit the same in the name of Court in any Nationalized Bank for a period of one year under ‘Auto Renewal’ scheme till disposal of the dispute by the Arbitrator. (v) Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the said Arbitrator. (vi) The respondent is at liberty to take all contentions before the Arbitrator. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6