- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30196 CMP No. 78 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 78 OF 2025 BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LTD TTMC 'A' BLOCK, 5TH LOOR, BMTC BUILDING KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR.H.D.RAJU, GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING) …PETITIONER (BY SRI INDRAKUMAR.C., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S TUNGABHADRA MINERALS PRIVATE LTD SALGAOKAR BHAVAN, ALTINHO PANAJI, GOA-403001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.S.GANAPATHY, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION AND POWER UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND TO APPOINT Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30196 CMP No. 78 of 2025 A SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS PER CLAUSE NO.22(a) OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28.09.1981 (ANNEXURE - A) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for appointment of the Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, in terms of Clause 22(a) of the Agreement dated 28.09.1981 (Annexure-A). 2. The claim made by the petitioner herein refers to the Agreement dated 28.09.1981 (Annexure-A) and the letter dated 03.07.2014 (Annexure-D), wherein petitioner has sought for retransfer of all the mining leases of the respondent relating to the mining areas, so also, to initiate procedure for closure/winding up of the Respondent- Company, which is forthcoming at Annexure-D to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30196 CMP No. 78 of 2025 petition. Hence, the petitioner has issued notice dated 27.10.2015 (Annexure-G) calling upon the respondent, to pay Rs.220,33,00,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Twenty Crores and Thirty Three Lakhs only) together with interest thereon, at the rate of 18% per annum, falling due till the date of actual payment and also retransfer all the mining leases currently available with the respondent. The said notice was been replied by the respondent, as per Annexure-G1 to the petition. In this regard, the petitioner again issued one more notice dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure-J), calling upon the respondent, seeking appointment of the sole Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute and the same was replied by the respondent as per Annexure-K to the petition. 3. Heard Sri.Indrakumar.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.S.Ganapathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the agreement dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30196 CMP No. 78 of 2025 28.09.1981 (Annexure-A), referring to Clause 22 of the said Agreement and submitted that the resolution of dispute is only by way of appointment of the Arbitrator and in this regard, he refers to the claim made by the petitioner at Annexure-D, letter dated 03.07.2014 addressed to the respondent seeking retransfer of all the mining leases as well as to initiate proceedings for closure of the respondent-company. He also refers to the notice dated 27.10.2015 (Annexure-G) and the letter addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka at Annexure-H dated 16.09.2016 seeking commencement of the arbitration proceedings against the respondent herein and therefore, sought for considering the averments made in the notice dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure-J) to the petition inter-alia prayed for appointment of the Arbitrator. 5. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the limitation has to be considered only after appointment of the Arbitrator by this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30196 CMP No. 78 of 2025 Court and therefore, sought for appropriate orders in this petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the reply made by them as per Annexure-K dated 03.01.2025 and further, submitted that the claim made by the petitioner herein is barred by limitation, accordingly, refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S.B AND T AG VS. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE in Arbitration Petition (C) No.13 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, disposed of on 18.05.2023 and submitted that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the averments made in the petition, it revolves around the agreement dated 28.09.1981 produced at Annexure-A to the petition. On careful consideration of the letter dated 03.07.2014 at Annexure- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30196 CMP No. 78 of 2025 D wherein the petitioner has sought for retransfer of all mining leases, which was currently available with the respondent, inter-alia sought for winding up of the respondent-company. It is also forthcoming from the notice dated 27.10.2015 (Annexure-G) wherein the petitioner has made a claim against the respondent for a sum of Rs.220,33,00,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Twenty Crores and Thirty Three Lakhs only) as well as the retransfer of all the mining leases. 8. Undisputably, the said notice has been replied by the respondent herein. In that view of the matter, since the issue/dispute arose between the parties in the year 2015 as per Annexure-G as well as the letter dated 03.07.2014 (Annexure-D) and in view of the declaration made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ARIF AZIM COMPANY LIMITED VS. APTECH LIMITED reported in (2024)5 SCC 313, it is the duty of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30196 CMP No. 78 of 2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to satisfy as to the limitation is concerned. 9. In that view of the matter, the claim sought to be arbitrated in the present petition is barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and I am of the view that no interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28