- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34495 CMP NO.167 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.167 OF 2025 BETWEEN: BARUGUR SUBBAN RAVI @ RAVI B.S. S/O SUBBAN B.C. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.23A/142-1, KRISHNA GIRI ROAD, WARD-4, BARUGUR (RV) AND (SP), KRISHNA GIRI - 635 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. MADHUSUDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: GARDENVIEW ABODE PRIVATE LIMITED CIN: U45203KA2011PTC060228, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT: C-5, RICH HOMES, NO.5/1, RICHMOND ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 025. REPRESENTED BY: 1. MR. SUSHIL MANTRI CHAIRMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. MR. HEBBUR SATYANARAYANAGUPTA GIRISH GUPTA DIRECTOR. 3. MR. GOPINATH RAJ KUMAR DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARSHA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34495 CMP NO.167 OF 2025 THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 READ WITH RULE 2 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME, 1996, PRAYING TO REFER THE DISPUTE TO THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL); APOINT AN ARBITRATOR AS SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ARBITRATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT AS PER THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE 10 IN AGREEMENT OF SALE AND CLAUSE 21 OF AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION BOTH DATED 24TH NOVEMBER, 2022 VIDE ANNEXURES 'A' AND 'B' RESPECTIVELY. 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 Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner has sought for referring the dispute to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru and to appoint a sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the petitioner and respondent as per the Arbitration Clause 10 of the Agreement of Sale dated 24th November, 2022 (Annexure- A) and Clause 21 of the Agreement for Construction dated 24th November, 2022 (Annexure-B). 2. Heard Sri. R. Madhusudhana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Harsha D. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34495 CMP NO.167 OF 2025 3. Sri. Madhusudhana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Clause 10 of the Agreement of Sale dated 24th November, 2020 (Annexure-A) and sought for referring the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru by appointing a sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute. 4. Per contra, Sri. Harsha D. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent refers to the very same Clause 10 of the Agreement of Sale dated 24th November, 2020 (Annexure-A) and submitted that the petitioner has to approach the Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'CREDAI'), Bengaluru before approaching this Court for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused Clause 10 of the Agreement of Sale dated 24th November, 2020 (Annexure-A), which reads as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34495 CMP NO.167 OF 2025 "10. In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the parties hereto with regard to any matter relating to or connected with this Agreement, or the construction of the apartment, the same shall be resolved by arbitration by a sole arbitrator from the Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India - Bengaluru ("CREDAI-Bengaluru"), and the Courts at Bengaluru a one shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try all suits and other proceedings with regard to this Agreement." 6. Having taken note of the language employed in the Agreement of Sale dated 24th November, 2020 (Annexure-A), it is open for the petitioner to approach the CREDAI, Bengaluru for resolution of the dispute arisen between the petitioner and the respondent. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in this petition at this stage to appoint a sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24