- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53027 CMP No. 552 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 552 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MRS KAVITA RAMESH AVADHANI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. RAMESH DAYANAND AVADHANI, RESIDING AT NO 159, SRINIVASA NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, 3RD PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560085 2. MR RAMESH DAYANAND AVADHANI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SON OF MR. KAUP DAYANAND AVADHANI RESIDING AT NO 159, SRINIVASA NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, 3RD PHASE, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560085 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETHAN B C, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S SHANDERS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 58, (OLD NO 1097), 18TH B MAIN ROAD, V BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560010 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.SRIRAM CHITTURI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53027 CMP No. 552 of 2025 AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS PER CLAUSE 5 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 9.05.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - D. THIS CMP, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Appoint a sole arbitration in terms of section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 to adjudicate the dispute that has arisen between the parties as per clause 5 of the memorandum of understanding dated 9.05.2019 produced at Annexure - D. b. Award the costs of the petition; c. Pass any other appropriate order that this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner and respondent had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 9.05.2019, which is governed by an arbitration clause (5), which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53027 CMP No. 552 of 2025 5) SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE & ARBITRATION: In the event of breach of the terms of this Agreement or in the event of any differences or disputes arising between the parties with regard to this Agreement or any matter relating thereto, the same shall be first referred to a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the FIRST PARTY and his award shall be final and binding on the parties hereto and Arbitration shall be as per the Provisions of the Arbitration &Reconciliation Act, 1996 in force and subject to the ordinances, notifications from time to time. The Arbitration shall be conducted in English Language and the place of Arbitration shall be in Bangalore. The courts at Bangalore alone shall have jurisdiction in all matters relating to this Agreement. 3. There being a dispute between the parties, the petitioner issued a notice dated 2.07.2025 raising a dispute. The dispute not having been resolved, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide notice dated 11.08.2025, which, though was served on the respondent, the respondent did not reply to the same. In that background, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Notice having been issued, the respondent is represented by counsel, who submits that the Memorandum of Understanding, which is the subject - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53027 CMP No. 552 of 2025 matter of the arbitration clause, is not adequately stamped. Secondly, he submits that the respondent cannot enter into a buyback agreement since the sale has been executed by M/s Irina Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 5. Heard Sri.Chethan.B.C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jai Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused papers. 6. Though the submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent cannot buy back since the original seller was another company, the fact remains that the respondent who agreed to buy the property from the petitioner, is known as M/s Shanders Properties Pvt. Ltd. and the apartment complex is known as “Shanders Dwellington”, which is named after the respondent. Thus, the question of the respondent now contending that it is the owner entity which is required to buy back the property, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53027 CMP No. 552 of 2025 since it is first vendor, is not sustainable. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i. CMP is allowed. ii. Shri.H.S.Ramana, 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 & Conciliation Centre for doing the needful. iv. Since the order is passed in the presence of both the counsels, the counsels are directed to appear before the Director, Arbitration & Conciliation Centre without requirement of any notice on 12.01.2026 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 parties who have produced it/them by following due procedure. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78