- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43743 WP No. 60623 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 60623 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI KAMAL KISHORE BHUTADA S/O LAT SRI C BHAWARILAL BHUTADA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.501 BRINDAVAN MANSION BULL TEMPLE ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PARASMAL B @ PARAS JAIN, ADV.) AND: M/S PLATINUM DEVELOPERS NO.47/2, SOUTH END ROAD FIRST FLOOR TATA SILK FARM BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 04 REP.BY ITS PARTNERS SRI PRAKHAR JAIN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SAMPATH A, ADV.) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.7.11.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3092/16 BY THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE VIDE ANNE-E AND DIRECT THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE ON DAY TO DAY BASIS, WITH IN SPECIFIED TIME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43743 WP No. 60623 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.11.2016 passed on I.A.No.II filed in O.S.No.3092/2016 by the Court of XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.3092/2016 before the jurisdictional Court at Bengaluru seeking the relief of declaration and also mesne profits. In the said suit, defendant no. 1 had filed an application I.A.No.II under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with a prayer to refer the parties for arbitration as provided under clause 29 of the Joint Development Agreement entered into between the parties on 20.10.2010. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objection and the trial Court by order impugned allowed I.A.No.II filed in O.S.No.3092 of 2016 and the parties were relegated to arbitration for resolution of their - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43743 WP No. 60623 of 2016 dispute. Being approved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, subsequent to execution of the Joint Development Agreement on 20.10.2010, a deed of Addendum dated 15.10.2014 and a Deed of Sharing of Apartments dated 11.02.2015 were executed. In view of the clauses found in the Deed of Sharing of Apartments, the Arbitration Clause found in the Joint Development Agreement virtually stands deleted. The clause 7.6 of the Deed of Sharing of Apartments specifically provides for dispute resolution between the parties and the same prevails over clause 29 found in the Joint Development Agreement. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent has argued in support of the order impugned and submits that the clauses found in the Deed of Sharing of Apartment does not specifically mention that Clause No.29 found in the Joint Development Agreement stands - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43743 WP No. 60623 of 2016 deleted or omitted, in the absence of any specific clause to the said effect in the Deed of Sharing of Apartment, since the Deed of Sharing of Apartment is executed, supplementary to the Joint Development Agreement, clause 29 found in Joint Development Agreement still binds the parties. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that after the parties had executed the Joint Development Agreement dated 20.10.2010, two other documents were executed between them, which is said to be supplementary to the Joint Development Agreement dated 20.10.2010. The deed of Addendum was executed between the parties only to enable acquisition of additional properties resulting in additional FAR capital and built-up area. But the said deed did not modify the mode of resolution of the dispute as provided under clause 29 of the Joint Development Agreement. 7. Clause 29 of the Joint Development Agreement reads as follows: "29.1 Neither Party shall sue the other Party without prior notice thereof to the other Party and pending this, the agreement or obligations undertaken - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43743 WP No. 60623 of 2016 herein by the parties shall be in force and not suspended and the rights of the parties shall be in force unless restrained by a Court. The intention of the Parties is not to bring any dispute and difference between them to any Court of law but to solve and settle the same mutually on discussion and amicably. 29.2 All disputes arising out of this agreement including the implementation of the terms hereof and/ or breach of any of the terms shall be referred to the Arbitration of SRI RAMESH SHANKLA residing at 76, Gajara, Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore- 560004 who will act as the sole Arbitrator. 29.3 The venue of arbitration shall be at Bangalore, Karnataka, India. The decision and award of the said Arbitrator shall be deemed to be final and binding upon the parties in all and every respect. The Arbitrator shall have the summary power to take decision and make award. 29.4 The provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 shall be applicable in all and every respect." 8. After execution of the deed of Addendum on 15.10.2014, a Deed of Sharing of Apartment was executed between the parties on 11.02.2015. Clause 1.1, clause 1.2 and clause 1.3 of the said deeds reads as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43743 WP No. 60623 of 2016 "1.1 The Parties shall at all times be governed by the terms contained herein read with the other terms and conditions provided in the JDA. 1.2 This Deed of Sharing of Apartments shall be the Supplementary to the said Joint Development Agreement and the said Joint Development Agreement read with this Deed of Sharing of Apartments shall continue to be in full force unless otherwise specifically stated. 1.3 Save as otherwise specified in this Deed of Sharing of Apartments, the terms and conditions of the JDA shall remain unchanged and shall continue to the bind the Parties and where the provisions of this Deed of Sharing of Apartments conflict with any provisions of the JDA, the provisions of this Deed of Sharing of Apartments will override those of the JDA." 9. In clause no.1.3 of the Deed of Sharing of the Apartments dated 11.02.2015, it is specifically stated that where the provisions of the Deed of Sharing of Apartments conflict with any provisions of the Joint Development Agreement, the provisions of the Deed of Sharing of Apartments will override those of the Joint Development Agreement. Deed of Sharing of Apartments dated 11.02.2015 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43743 WP No. 60623 of 2016 provides for dispute resolution between the parties. The same reads as follows: " 7.6 Dispute resolution 7.6.1 In the event of breach by either Party, the other Party (the aggrieved party) shall be entitled to specific performance and also be entitled to recover all losses and expenses incurred as a consequence of such breach from the Party committing breach. 7.6.2 Irrespective of what is stated in this Agreement, any breach committed by a Party may be complained of by the other Party in writing calling upon the Party in breach to remedy the breach. On the failure of such Party to remedy such breach within 15 (Fifteen) days from the date of receipt of such notice to that effect, the non-defaulting Party shall have the right to take steps to resolve such non-compliance in terms stated below and elsewhere in this agreement. 7.6.3 In the event of any dispute or difference arising in relation to this agreement, its interpretation, performance or any other matter, the same shall be decided by mutual discussion between the Parties Either of the Parties shall be entitled to raise such question in writing in a letter addressed to the other Party and the Parties representatives shall meet and use good faith efforts to resolve such dispute or differences within a week of either of the Parties raising a dispute." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43743 WP No. 60623 of 2016 10. From a reading of clause 7.6 of the said deed, it is apparent that in the event of breach by either party, the aggrieved party is entitled to seek relief of specific performance and also be entitled to recover all losses and expenses incurred as a consequence of such breach from the party committing the breach. In fact, Clause 7.6 provides for different modes of dispute resolution than the mode of dispute resolution provided under clause 29 of the Joint Development Agreement. Since clause 1.3 of the Deed of Sharing of Apartments dated 11.02.2015 specifically provides that whenever the provisions of the Deed of Sharing of Apartment conflicts with the provisions of Joint Development Agreement, the provisions of Deed of Sharing of Apartment will override the provisions of the Joint Development Agreement. Clause 7.6 has an overriding effect over clause 29 of the Joint Development Agreement. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court, which has therefore erred in allowing the application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by defendant no. 1. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 07.11.2016 passed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43743 WP No. 60623 of 2016 on I.A.No.II filed in O.S.No.3092/2016 by the Court of XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru cannot be sustained. 11. Accordingly, following:- ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) impugned order dated 07.11.2016 passed on I.A.No.II filed in O.S.No.3092/2016 by the Court of XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. Consequently, IA No.II stands dismissed. (iii) Since this writ petition challenging the order passed on the application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was pending consideration, defendant no.1 is granted liberty to file his written statement before the trial Court opposing the suit claim and the same shall be filed on or before the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43743 WP No. 60623 of 2016 (iv) Since the contesting parties are represented before this Court, the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 08.12.2025 without awaiting further notice. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1