- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51548 CMP No. 323 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 323 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. ARINDAM MUKHERJEE AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O ARUN BIKASH MUKHERJEE, R/AT G-1, EXPRESS RESIDENCY, BASAPPA ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 042 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATIK PANY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S PEARL COMMUNITY ONE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT OLD NO.33, NEW NO.8/1, HAUDIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560042 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. MR. CHRISLYN CARDOZA ALIAS MAURIS ANTON CHRISLYN CARDOSA MANAGING DIRECTOR OF RESPONDENT NO.1, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O BRUNO CARDOZA, R/AT NO.6/2, HAYES ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN, MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 025 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51548 CMP No. 323 of 2024 3. MR. VIVEK JAIRAJ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF RESPONDENT NO.1, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O NAKKADI PULAMBIL JAIRAJ, R/AT NO.305, SRI RAM WHITE HOUSE APARTMENTS, 15TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 032 4. SMT.R SHAKUNTALA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O SRI PUTTAIAH AND D/O N M RAMANNA, R/AT NO.93, DEVI MANDIR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 079 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN FOR R4; REP BY GPA HOLDER SUHASINI CHETHAN V/O DTD 16/12/24 R3 IS DELETED FROM ARRAY OF PARTIES) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11 (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, READ WITH ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015. PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR AS PER CLAUSE 18.3 OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED 04.03.2016 (ANNEXURE B) ENABLING RESPONDENTS TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION AND EXECUTE A SALE DEED OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND PASS SUCH OTHER DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND 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 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51548 CMP No. 323 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following relief: "WHEREFORE Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a Sole Arbitrator as per clause 18.3 of the Construction Agreement dated 04.03.2016 (Annexure-B) enabling Respondents to complete construction and execute a Sale Deed of the Schedule Property in favour of the Petitioner and pass such other directions or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale with respondent No.1/developer and respondent No.4/owner of the property. Respondent No.4 being represented by the developer as a general power of attorney holder, the said agreement is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of clause 15.3, which is reproduced hereunder for easy of reference: "In the event of breach of the terms of this Agreement to sell or in the event of any differences or disputes arising between the parties in regard to this Agreement or any matter relating thereto, the same shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the parties in mutual consultation or by court of law and his award shall be final and binding on the parties hereto and Arbitration shall be as per the Provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in force. The Arbitration shall be conducted in English Language and the place of Arbitration shall be in Bangalore." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51548 CMP No. 323 of 2024 3. The petitioner had issued a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act") invoking the arbitration clause on 07.03.2023, the said notice having been served on the respondents, respondent No.4 replied to the same, contending that the agreement was entered into by the developer, the landowner has no knowledge of the said proceedings and as such, respondent No.4 was not responsible for the same. 4. Respondent No.1/developer and respondent No.2/the managing director of the developer, who was signatory to the said agreement representing the developer and also a power of attorney holder of the landowner, did not reply to the said notice. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid relief. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has, on appearance, filed a memo enclosing an arbitral award as regards to arbitral proceedings between respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 and as such, submits that the issues - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51548 CMP No. 323 of 2024 between respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 being closed by the said arbitral award, respondent No.4 would not be liable for any actions taken by respondent No.1 in terms of the agreement entered into by respondent No.1 with the petitioner. 6. She submits that all the monies have been received by respondent No.1 and no amounts have been paid to respondent No.4. As such, respondent No.4 cannot be held to be liable to make payment of any monies to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that respondent No.2 is not a party to the agreement, and as such, the matter cannot be referred to arbitration. 8. I am unable to agree with both the submissions of the counsel for respondents inasmuch as it is in pursuance of the joint development agreement entered into between respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 that the petitioner has entered into an agreement of sale with them. Though respondent No.4 is represented by respondent No.1 who in turn is represented by respondent No.2, who is the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51548 CMP No. 323 of 2024 power of attorney holder of respondent No.4 and though the dispute between respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 are stated to have been settled by way of an arbitral award. 9. The fact remains that the petitioner's claim, being on the basis of the agreement between respondent Nos.1 and 4 still survives, and as such, the petitioner would be entitled to proceed against both respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 despite the coming to an end of the agreement between respondent Nos.1 and 4. 10. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that respondent No.2 is not a party to the agreement, I am unable to accept the same for the reason that respondent No.2 is a signatory to the agreement as a representative of respondent No.1 as also a power of attorney holder of respondent No.4 and as such, he cannot claim that he has nothing to do with the present agreement or the transaction. 11. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51548 CMP No. 323 of 2024 ORDER i) The. CMP is allowed. ii) Sri. B.A. Muchandi, a former District Judge of the District Judiciary is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties under the aegis of the Arbitration Centre attached to this Court. iii) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre for doing the needful. iv) Since the order is passed in the presence of both the counsel, they shall appear before the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre without requirement of any notice on 16.12.2025 at 2.30 p.m. v) All contentions are kept open. vi) Registry is directed to return the original and/or certified copies, if produced, to the respective - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51548 CMP No. 323 of 2024 parties who have produced it/them by following due procedure. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36