- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30014 CMP NO.62 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.62 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. GURUNATH REDDY S/O LATE G. SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT: A1301, SETHNA POWER TOWER, CHELKERE, BABUSAPALYA, AGARA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 043. REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND G.P.A. HOLDER SMT. LEELAVATHY G.S REDDY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.K. SHRIKARA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. BRAHMALL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. KEKOO SOLI SETHNA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: KENSINGTON GARDENS, NO.13, KENSINGTON ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 042. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30014 CMP NO.62 OF 2025 THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO INVOKE THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE AT CLAUSE 26 OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 29TH NOVEMBER, 2004 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF SRI. BASAVARAJ TADHAL, RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE UNDER THE AEGIS OF THE ARBITRATION CENTRE-KARNATAKA (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL) BENGALURU, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE PERSON FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES AS PER THE NOTICE DATED 12TH NOVEMBER, 2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-K. 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 for resolving the claim of the parties in terms of the Notice dated 12th November, 2024 (Annexure-K). 2. The facts in nutshell for adjudication of this petition are that the father of the petitioner viz., late G. Srinivasa Reddy had acquired the Schedule-A property through Partition Deed dated 30th July, 1942. The father of the petitioner and the respondent have entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 29th November, 2004 (Annexure-B) for construction of multi-storied commercial/residential complex. On the very - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30014 CMP NO.62 OF 2025 same date, the registered General Power of Attorney was executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent to enable the respondent to get the required permission from the statutory authorities for development of the schedule property. It is forthcoming from the petition that the Supplemental Area Sharing Agreement dated 12th December, 2012 (Annexure-E) was entered into between the father and mother of the petitioner with the respondent which is not a registered document. It is also stated in the petition that the father of the petitioner conveyed the residential converted land to an extent of 14.6 guntas covered under the Schedule-A property to the respondent as per the registered Sale Deed dated 13th October, 2006 (Annexure-D). In the meanwhile, on account of the dispute arisen between the parties in respect of the development of the schedule property, the petitioner herein issued notice dated 12th November, 2024 (Annexure-K) calling upon the respondent to cancel the Joint Development Agreement dated 29th November, 2004 (Annexure-B), however, the respondent did not replied for the said notice. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking appointment of Arbitrator - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30014 CMP NO.62 OF 2025 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. Heard Sri. P.K. Shrikara, learned counsel on behalf of Smt. Nidhi M. Patil, appearing for the petitioner and Sri. L.M. Chidanandayya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Sri. P.K. Shrikara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the Joint Development Agreement dated 29th November, 2004 (Annexure-B), wherein, the parties have entered into an agreement for developing the entire extent of 3 acre 26 guntas in Survey No.50 of Chelekere Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (now called as Bengaluru East Taluk). It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent had developed the portion of land in question and certain extent of land has not been developed. He also invited the attention of the Court to registered General Power of Attorney dated 29th November, 2004 (Annexure-C) and submitted that, there is default on the part of the respondent to develop the entire extent of land as specified in the Joint Development Agreement mentioned above. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30014 CMP NO.62 OF 2025 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Supplemental Area Sharing Agreement dated 12th December, 2012 (Annexure-E) and contended that the rights of the parties contained in Joint Development Agreement are merged with the Supplemental Area Sharing Agreement. Therefore, he refers to the dispute mentioned in the legal notice dated 25th October, 2014 (Annexure-F) and 12th November, 2024 (Annexure-K) and sought for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 6. Per contra, Sri. L.M. Chidanandayya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised the plea of limitation for appointment of Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the Joint Development Agreement has been entered into between the parties during the year-2004 and the Supplemental Area Sharing Agreement has been entered into between the parties during the year-2012 and therefore, the claim made by the petitioner herein is barred by limitation since, the petitioner has not taken steps for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30014 CMP NO.62 OF 2025 appointment of Arbitrator giving effect to the Joint Development Agreement as well as the Supplemental Area Sharing Agreement. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent referring to the registered Sale Deed dated 13th October, 2006 (Annexure-D) executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent, contended that the petitioner had approached this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.351 of 2022 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of Arbitrator and in view of the plea raised by the respondent on limitation, the petitioner has withdrawn the Civil Miscellaneous Petition to comply with the requirements under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He further contended the petitioner has filed Original Suit No.25709 of 2024 before the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, seeking relief of declaring the Joint Development Agreement dated 29th November, 2004 (Annexure-B) as void agreement and withdrawn the said suit and again filed the present petition, seeking appointment of Arbitrator for second - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30014 CMP NO.62 OF 2025 time and therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the present petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKH vs. ASAP FLUIDS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER reported in (2025)1 SCC 502, particularly by referring to the paragraphs 33, 43 and 48 therein submitted that the petition requires to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 9. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the Joint Development Agreement dated 29th November, 2004 (Annexure-B) was entered into between the father of the petitioner and the respondent to develop the property mentioned in the schedule to the petition. On the very same date, father of the petitioner executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent to get required permission from the statutory authorities for development of the schedule property. It is also to be noted that the registered Sale Deed dated 13th October, 2006 (Annexure-D) has been executed by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30014 CMP NO.62 OF 2025 the father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent to an extent of 14.6 guntas out of 3 acre 26 guntas of the schedule property. 10. In the backdrop of these aspects, the legal notice dated 25th October, 2014 (Annexure-F) issued on behalf of the petitioner to the respondent to terminate the Joint Development Agreement dated 29th November, 2004 is to be considered for assessing the period of limitation in the present petition. It is also to be noted that, father of the petitioner died on 25th March, 2023 as per the Death Certificate produced at Annexure- G and the petitioner has approached this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.351 of 2022, seeking appointment of Arbitrator. For the same, the respondent filed objections and raised the issue relating to the limitation stating that the petitioner has sought for giving effect to the Joint Development Agreement and there is a lapse of seventeen years in taking action for appointment of Arbitrator to resolved the dispute and accordingly, the appointment of Arbitrator cannot be made at this juncture. The respondent has also urged for consideration the Notice dated 21st September, 2012 issued by the father of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30014 CMP NO.62 OF 2025 the petitioner. In that view of the matter, on careful examination of the averments made in the petition, the same would not disclose the filing of Original Suit No.25709 of 2024 (Annexure-R2) filed by the petitioner, seeking relief of declaring the Joint Development Agreement dated 29th November, 2004 as void agreement. Therefore, if the appointment of Arbitrator is made under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the present petition, the same would go against the period specified in the Limitation Act and contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKH (supra) and in the case of ARIF AZIM COMPANY LTD. vs. APTECH LIMITED reported in (2024)5 SCC 313. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the petition cannot be accepted at this stage as the claim made by the petitioner, seeking appointment of Arbitrator is barred by limitation. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27