- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32334 CMP No.20 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.20 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. VISHWA INFRASTRUCTURES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1-11-258/C/24, PLOT NO.24, GAGAN VIHAR COLONY, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD-500016. REPRESENTED BY YERRA SAI KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHAN VEERANNA TIGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD AN AUTONOMOUS BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD ACT, HAVING OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32334 CMP No.20 of 2025 CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU -560009. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER (R) BWSSB AND ANOTHER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B S SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT THE RESPONDENT'S NOMINEE ARBITRATOR AND REFER THE DISPUTES TO ARBITRATION IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 67.6 OF CONDITIONS OF PARTICULAR APPLICATION OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 02.11.2009 (ANNEXUER C); AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint the respondent's nominee arbitrator and refer the disputes to arbitration in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32334 CMP No.20 of 2025 terms of clause 67.6 of Conditions of Particular Application of the Agreement dated 02.11.2009 as per Annexure-C to the petition, or in the alternative appoint any other sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Sri. Rohan Veeranna Tigadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Sub- Clause 67(6) of the bid document dated 02.11.2009 and submitted that the dispute has to be resolved only by way of arbitration and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court for appointment of Arbitrator under S.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. Per contra, Sri. B.S. Shrinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - statutory body, invited the attention of the Court to sub-clause 67(5) and argued that an amicable settlement has to be made in respect of the dispute between the parties and therefore, before appointing an Arbitrator, an attempt has to be made for settlement in the matter and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32334 CMP No.20 of 2025 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that an attempt to amicable settlement between the parties has to be made as per Clause 67(5) of the Agreement at Annexure-C and also I have given my anxious consideration in so far as Clause 67(6) of the aforementioned document which provides for resolution of dispute through an Arbitrator. 6. In the background of these aspects, I have carefully examined the notice dated 25.01.2024 and 28.02.2024. Having taken note of the claim made in the aforesaid notices issued by the petitioner herein under S.21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, calling upon the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute, and that the respondent had given a reply dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure-G), with regard to arbitration proceedings for resolution of the dispute, and in that view of the matter, there shall not be any room for amicable settlement between the parties. It also makes it clear that, even if there is a provision made for settlement through conciliation or prior to invoking arbitration, however the said Clause cannot be considered as a mandatory - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32334 CMP No.20 of 2025 provision and accordingly, relegating the parties to move for settlement, does not arise by looking into the reply filed by the respondent. In that view of the matter, since such provision is directory in nature and not mandatory, I am of the view that, relegating the parties at this juncture after the correspondence with regard to appointment of Arbitrator is concerned, does not hold good. Accordingly, Hon'ble Justice Sri. Ramachandra D. Huddar, retired Judge of this Court is hereby appointed as the Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute between the parties to this petition. 7. Though sub-clause 67(6) provides for number of Arbitrators to be 3, however, learned counsel for the parties in consensus submitted that, there shall be sole Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute. In order to avoid delay in the matter, the parties are directed to appear before the Arbitration Centre, Race Course Road, Bengaluru, on 23.09.2025 at 11.00 a.m. On appearance of the parties, learned Arbitrator is requested to dispose of the matter. 8. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru and also to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32334 CMP No.20 of 2025 Hon'ble Justice Sri. Ramachandra D. Huddar, retired Judge of this Court, forthwith. 9. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21