- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 906 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. D. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SON OF LATE B. K. DEVARAJ, R/AT NO 11-12'5TH MAIN 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: MAYA VENTURES PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFIFCE AT, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022 NO. 927, 22ND MAIN, JP NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560078. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. M. N. KARTHIK, …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISHWAS N., ADVOCATE AND SRI. SUHAS C.S., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR THAT THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES UNDER THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 10.06.2004 AT CLAUSE 35 OF ANNEXURE-'A'. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "a. Issue an order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the 3rd respondent BMRCL to pay fair compensation to the petitioner for having acquired land bearing No.70, (NSS-55) measuring 255.58 Square Meter acquired by virtue of the notification dated BMRCL/LAQ-70/R/-4A/09-10, in order to secure the ends of justice and equity. b. Issue an order of Direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to QUASH the impugned endorsement dated 29.06.2011, at Annexure-'E' issued by the 3rd respondent BMRCL refusing to pay compensation to the petitioner, thereby declaring the same as Un Constitutional, illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. c. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The petitioner as the owner and respondent as the developer had entered into a unregistered Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004. Certain disputes having arisen under the said agreement, an agreement for submission to arbitration was entered into on 17.08.2016 between the petitioner and earlier director - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022 of the respondent company and the respondent company referring certain disputes to a named arbitrator. The named arbitrator had commenced and concluded the arbitral proceedings and rendered the settlement award on 31.08.2016. It is subsequently on 17.09.2022 that the petitioner had issued the present legal notice for reference of the matter to arbitration. The said notice not being replied to by the respondent, the above petition was filed, notice was issued. Thereafter, the respondent filed objections. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute now raised were not covered under the earlier submission inasmuch as it is only the disputes referred to in clause Nos. 28 to 31 of the said agreement for submission to arbitration which was so referred, keeping the other disputes open to be referred to arbitration at any date which the petitioner chose and as such it is on that ground that the disputes arising out of the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004 are now sought to be referred to arbitration under the notice dated 17.09.2022. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022 4. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that all the disputes which have arisen between the parties had been referred to arbitration. A settlement award having been passed by the sole arbitrator, the said settlement award has been registered and acted upon by all the parties. It is thereafter that the present notice has been issued which is an abuse of process of the Court and the arbitration proceedings inasmuch as all disputes having been resolved, the resolved matters are sought to be re-agitated by the petitioner. 5. Heard Sri.Kashyap.N.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vishwas.N, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the papers. 6. It is not in dispute that a Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004 had been entered into between the parties. The said Joint Development Agreement was governed by an arbitration clause in terms of clause No.35 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "35) Arbitration: In the event of difference of opinion or dispute between the parties such - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022 dispute shall be referred to an Arbitrator. Both the parties herein have agreed to appoint Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, Advocate as sole arbitrator." 7. The named arbitrator therein being conflicted, could not take up the arbitral proceedings, an agreement for submission to arbitration was entered into in terms of clause No.32 thereof. It has been clearly stated that through mutual discussions the parties have decided to sort out disputes enumerated in Para Nos.28 to 31 through arbitration and in terms of Para No.33 have agreed that the named arbitrator would be changed. 8. What would also have to be seen is clause No.(iii) at internal page 19 of the said agreement, which makes it very clear that the understanding constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral between the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof. 9. In that view of the matter, the agreement for submission to arbitrator arising out of the Joint Development - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022 Agreement dated 10.06.2004, the parties had categorically identified the disputes that arisen between them and chosen to refer the disputes to the named arbitrator under the said agreement. The disputes have been categorically enumerated in Para No.28 of the said agreement and it is only those disputes which were referred to arbitration. In the said agreement there is also a reference made to certain suits which had been filed, criminal complaint which had been filed as also proceeding before this court as regards compensation to be received from Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Hence all those issues which arose between the parties were referred to arbitration of the sole arbitrator who has rendered a settlement award. What would also have to be looked into by this Court is that the arbitrator was agreed upon between both the parties and a settlement award rendered which has been registered with a jurisdictional sub-registrar. 10. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration clause No.(iii) at page 19 of the said agreement, makes it clear that the understanding would constitute the entire - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022 agreement and supersedes all prior agreements, the question of reference to a Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004, which stood superseded by that agreement, would not arise. The parties having categorically identified the disputes between them, those disputes have been referred to the named arbitrator and adjudicated by the named arbitrator. The question of the petitioner once again relying upon the Joint Development Agreement which has been superseded would not arise. The petition not making out any grounds, stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15