- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24209 CMP No. 298 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 298 OF 2024 BETWEEN: LALITH KUMAR LUNAVAT AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. PAKASH CHAND, R/AT NO. 41, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN ROAD, JEEVANAHALLI, COX-TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRAVAN S LOKRE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MEENA PRASAD W/O. RENUKA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. RENUKA PRASAD S/O. LATE KAMBALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENT No.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO. 205, NEW BEL ROAD, NEAR RAMAIAH COLLEGE, SEENAPPA LAYOUT, RMV EXTENSION, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 094. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 25.03.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 & R2 H/S) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24209 CMP No. 298 of 2024 THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 11(4) (5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 10-08-2016 IN CLAUSE WHEREAS BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO SETTLE THE DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS AMICABLY OR ANY DISPUTE SHALL BE SETTLED BY WAY OF ARBITRATION AS STATED IN ANNEXURE A AND COLLATERAL SURETY AGREEMENT DATED 10-05-2018 IN CLAUSE “ANY DISPUTE OR DIFFERENCES ARISES BETWEEN THE PARTIES THEY MAY APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR OR VIA MEDIATION TO SORT OUT THE MATTER AMICABLY” AS STATED IN ANNEXURE-C . THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the arbitral dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of the arbitration clause in page 4 of the sale agreement dated 10.08.2016 vide Annexure-A, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24209 CMP No. 298 of 2024 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The registered sale agreement was to be executed between the parties to the petition wherein the respondents agreed to sell the land bearing Sy.No.42/4 situated at Thalikeri village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. As collateral security, the collateral security agreement was executed by respondent No.1 along with the petitioner on 10.05.2018. The respondents failed to fulfill their obligations. Hence, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 22.12.2023, calling upon the respondents for reissue of balance sale consideration amount and execution of a sale deed as per the agreement of sale dated 10.08.2016. However, the respondents did not reply. It was agreed that the sale to be concluded by the respondents. The respondents tried to alienate the said property by creating 3rd party rights. The petitioner filed an interim application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24209 CMP No. 298 of 2024 A.A.No.25001/2024 and an interim measure of temporary injunction was passed. The petitioner by invoking an arbitration clause, issued an arbitration notice dated 15.04.2024, and also issued a legal notice by way of email to the respondents under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on 03.05.2024. However, the respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. Hence, this petition. 3. Notice was issued to the respondents. Despite the service of notice, the respondents remained unrepresented. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Shravan S. Lokre, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale agreement was executed between the parties to the petition, and the respondents did not perform their part of the contract. The petitioner issued a legal notice calling upon the respondents to perform their part of the contract by receiving the balance sale consideration - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24209 CMP No. 298 of 2024 amount and execute a registered sale deed. The respondents neither replied to the legal notice, nor come forward to execute the registered sale deed. He submits that there is an arbitration clause, in the sale agreement. The petitioner by invoking an arbitration clause issued a legal notice on 15.04.2024, and also on 03.05.2024 through an email. The respondents did not reply. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the arbitral dispute to the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement of sale dated 10.08.2016 as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules?” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24209 CMP No. 298 of 2024 8. There is no dispute regarding the execution of a registered sale deed on 10.08.2016 between the parties to the petition. The petitioner called upon the respondents to perform their part of the contract. Despite the requests made by the petitioner, the respondents did not perform their part of the contract. The petitioner got issued a legal notice on 22.12.2023, calling upon the respondents to perform their part of the contract. The respondents neither replied to the legal notice nor performed their part of the contract. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement dated 10.08.2016, which provides that both parties have agreed to settle the differences of opinion amicably or any dispute shall be settled by way of arbitration. The petitioner, by invoking the said arbitration clause, issued a notice on 15.04.2024 and an emailed on 03.05.2024, proposing the name of the arbitrator. The respondents did not reply to the said arbitration notice nor come forward to propose a name of the arbitrator. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24209 CMP No. 298 of 2024 9. Admittedly, the dispute arose between the parties to the petition, and the same must be resolved through arbitration. There is an arbitration clause to resolve the arbitral dispute through arbitration. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitrator. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. ii. Sri. Prakash Ballari, learned District Judge (Retired), is nominated to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with the arbitration clause of the Agreement of sale dated 10.08.2016, and as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24209 CMP No. 298 of 2024 iii. The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18