- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45441 CMP No. 108 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 108 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION & HOUSING PVT. LTD., 206 & 207 SOPHIA'S CHOICE, ST. MARK ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. AVINASH PRABHU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI J P DARSHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR K MURUGESH, S/O MR. C S KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT 7, V.P COLONY EXTENSION, AYANARARAM, CHENNAI-600 023. 2. MRS. REENA R, W/O MR K MURUGESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT 7, V.P COLONY EXTENSION, AYANARARAM, CHENNAI-600 023. …RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO PASS AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION: 1) APPOINT SOLE ARBITRATOR TO DETERMINE AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTY'S ACCORDANCE WITH ARBITRATION CLAUSE 29 IN SALE AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED 09.02.2012 AS PRODUCED AS Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45441 CMP No. 108 of 2024 ANNEXURE C AND WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a. "APPOINT Sole Arbitrator to determine and adjudicate the dispute between the party's accordance with arbitration clause 29 in Sale and construction Agreement dated 09.02.2012 as produced as Annexure C and with provisions of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996. b. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. c. Award costs, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. A notice issued to the respondents under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') has been returned unserved on account of no such person being present at the address mentioned in the notice. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45441 CMP No. 108 of 2024 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1987, to contend that notice is deemed to have been served, since it has been sent to the last known address of the respondents. 4. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner insofar as the present matter under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is concerned, since appointment of an arbitrator is by way of consent and concurrence between both the parties. If the notice under Section 21 of the Act is not served on the respondents, the question of consent and/or further proceeding with the matter will not arise. 5. For that reason, reserving liberty to the petitioner to issue fresh notice at the current and proper address of the respondents, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33