- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36780 CMP NO.717 OF 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.717 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. M/S AKSHAYA EMINENCE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.54, 11TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038. PRESENTLY AT NO.LEVEL - 4 495, C.M.H. ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 038. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI G. SATISH BABU. 2. SRI. G. SATISH BABU S/O SRI. ASHWATHA NARAYAANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.401, AISHWARYA SIGNUM, 7TH MAIN, INDIRANGAR 2ND STAGE, OPP. AMBEDAKR COLLEGE, BENGALURU - 560 038. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.V. BABU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(a). H.P. GURAPPA REDDY SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS LRS. SMT. H.G. MANJULA D/O LATE H.P. GURAPPA REDDY, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36780 CMP NO.717 OF 2022 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.57, 12TH CROSS, GARDEN HOUSE, DODDANEKUNDI, BENGALURU - 560 037. 1(b). SMT. H.G. LAKSHMI DEVI D/O LATE H.P. GURAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.236, KANCHARAKANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU - 560 084. 2. 2(a). H.G. PRABHAKAR S/O H.P. GURAPPA REDDY SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LRS. SMT. PUSHPA W/O LATE H.G. PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 2(b). SRI. RAJASHEKAR REDDY ALSO KNOWN AS SRI. RAJASHEKAR, S/O LATE H.G. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 2(c). SMT. DIVYA D/O LATE H.G. PRABAHKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.2(a) TO 2(c) ARE R/AT NO.328, FLAT NO.A1, JANANI, THE MANSION, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 'B' BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 036. 3. SRI. H.G. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O H.P. GURAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.800, DODDANEKUNDI, NEAR KUNDALAHALLI EXTENSION, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36780 CMP NO.717 OF 2022 K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH Y.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) AND R1(b); SRI. SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE FOR R2(a) to (c) AND R3) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT MAHESHWARI S. HIREMATH, RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE AS SOLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 3(f) OF THE AGREEMENT OF LEASE DATED 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE, ARISING OUT OF THE SAID AGREEMENT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising out of the Agreement dated 25th September, 2006 (Annexure-A) between the parties in terms of Clause 3(f) of the said Agreement. 2. Heard Sri. G.V. Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Mahesh Y.L., learned counsel appearing for respondents 1(a) and 1(b); and Sri. Sammith S., learned counsel appearing for respondents 2(a) to 2(c) and respondent No.3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36780 CMP NO.717 OF 2022 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that, Clause 3(f) of the Agreement dated 25th September, 2006 (Annexure-A) provides for resolution of disputes between the parties arising out of the Agreement and as such, Sole Arbitrator be appointed to resolve the dispute. Insofar as the limitation is concerned, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the consideration of the limitation makes a question of fact and law and therefore, the same may be raised by the Arbitrator also. Accordingly, he sought for allowing the petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that, Clause 3(f) of the Agreement dated 25th September, 2006 (Annexure-A) stipulates the intention of the parties to enter into a future Joint Development Agreement after obtaining the conversion of land in question and therefore, since no further Joint Development Agreement was entered into between the parties, the petition seeking appointment of Arbitrator requires to be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for respondents further invited the attention of the Court to Notice dated 15th March, 2022 (Annexure-C) particularly to the paragraph 4 of the notice and submitted that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36780 CMP NO.717 OF 2022 the Agreement dated 25th September, 2006 (Annexure-A) is terminated by the parties and therefore, the question of appointment of an Arbitrator as per Clause 3(f) of the said Agreement does not arise. Insofar as the delay in seeking appointment of the Arbitrator is concerned, learned counsel appearing for respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B AND T AG vs. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE reported in (2024)5 SCC 358 and submitted that the law of limitation is made applicable in respect of arbitration matter, even before an appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined Agreement dated 25th September, 2006 (Annexure-A), wherein the clause 3(f) stipulates for appointment of an Arbitrator. The language employed under clause 3(f) of the Agreement makes it clear that the parties were intend to enter into a future Joint Development Agreement after obtaining the conversion of the land in question. On perusal of the Notice dated 15th March, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36780 CMP NO.717 OF 2022 2022 (Annexure-C) the same would indicate that, the Agreement dated 25th September, 2006 (Annexure-A) is terminated as per paragraph 4 of the said notice. The appointment of Arbitrator in the Agreement is to be read along with the intention of the parties to enter into a future Joint Development Agreement, which is not been entered into between the parties, and the same is not disputed by the other side. Therefore, following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B AND T AG (supra), as the Agreement dated 25th September, 2006 (Annexure-A) has been terminated by the parties as per the Notices dated 15th March, 2022 (Annexure-C) and 20th May, 2009 (Annexure-R1), I am of the view that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by time and as such, no interference be called for in this petition to appoint an Arbitrator. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12