- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41951 CMP No. 111 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 111 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SKYLINE CONSTRUCTIONS AND HOUSING PVT. LTD., 206 AND 207 SOPHIA' S CHOICE, ST. MARK ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. AVINASH PRABHU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.P. DARSHAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: MR JOSEPH KENNEDY GEORGE AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O MR GEORGE HARRY, RESIDING AT NO. 43/7, PROMENADE ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, GURUKRIPA, 1ST CROSS, FRASER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005. …RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION 1. APPOINT SOLE ARBITRATOR TO DETERMINE AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTYS ACCORDANCE WITH ARBITRATION CLAUSE 29 IN SALE CUM CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED 15.12.2011 AS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41951 CMP No. 111 of 2024 C AND WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996. 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 cum construction produced as ANNEXURE C and with provisions of the arbitration and Agreement dated 15.12.2011 Conciliation Act, 1996; as (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 respondent 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1987, to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41951 CMP No. 111 of 2024 contend that notice is deemed to have been served since it has been sent to the last known address of the respondent. 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 respondent, the question of consent and/or further proceedings 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 respondent, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2