- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10382 CMP No. 196 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 196 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S CONCORDE HOUSING CORORATION PRIVATE LIMITED R/O 46/A, 1ST MAIN, 3RD PHASE, J P NAGAR BENGALURU-560078 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR B S NESARA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K V SATEESHCHANDRA., ADV.) AND: 1. MR NASIRUDDIN P BAGWAN S/O PAPULASAB AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O VIDYANAGAR BEHIND MANICKBAGH AUTOMOBILES HUBLI-580031 2. MRS ANISA NASIRUDDIN BAGWAN D/O MR NASIRUDDIN P BAGWAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O POST GANDHIWGWAD TALUK KHANAPUR DISTRICT BELGAUM-591112 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10382 CMP No. 196 of 2023 3. MR RAHEES AHMED S/O MR NASIRUDDIN P BAGWAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O POST, GANDIWGWAD TALUK KHANAPUR DISTRICT BELGAUM-591112 4. MR RAJA RAMEEZ BAGWAN S/O MR NASIRUDDIN P BAGWAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O POST GANDIWGWAD TALUK KHANAPUR DISTRICT BELGAUM-591112 …RESPONDENTS (R1, R2, R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED) THE CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO NOMINATE AND APPOINT A SUITABLE SOLE ARBITRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE 9 OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, DATED 09.03.2020 AND 10.09.2020 TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS, VIDE ANENXURE-B AND C, AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10382 CMP No. 196 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act of 1996’) for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of clause 9 of the memorandum of understandings dated 09.03.2020 and 10.09.2020, vide Annexures ‘B and C’. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The petitioner and the respondents have entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 10.03.2020 and 10.09.2020 of the joint development agreement and general power of attorney. The dispute aroses between the parties to the petition in terms of the memorandum of understanding dated 10.09.2020. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 02.02.2022 calling upon the respondents to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10382 CMP No. 196 of 2023 refund the deposits received under the memorandum of understanding and reimburse the expenses incidental thereto incurred by the petitioner within 10 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. The respondent did not reply to the legal notice. There is an arbitration clause in the memorandum of understanding. The petitioner invoked an arbitration clause by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act on 13.02.2023 vide Annexure-F. The arbitration notice was served on the respondents. Despite service of notice, the respondents neither replied nor consented for the appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner executed the memorandum of understanding in favour of the respondents, and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10382 CMP No. 196 of 2023 respondents have committed a breach of terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding. The petitioner issued a legal notice calling upon the respondents to refund the amounts. He submits that the respondents neither replied to the legal notice nor refunded the security deposit. There is an arbitration clause in the memorandum of understanding. He submits that the petitioner invoked an arbitration cause by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act of 1996. He submits that the respondents have not replied to the arbitration notice. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no arbitral dispute arises between the petitioner and the respondents. Hence, the question of referring the matter to the arbitration would not arise. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10382 CMP No. 196 of 2023 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The point, that would arise for consideration is as follows: “Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration in terms of clause 9 of the agreement vide Annexures – B and C, as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Rules? 8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner and respondents are entered into memorandum of understanding, joint development agreement and power of autonomy. The respondents failed to comply the terms and conditions and committed a breach of contract of memorandum of understanding. The petitioner issued a legal notice calling upon the respondents to repay the security deposit. The respondents neither refunded the security deposit nor replied to the legal notice. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10382 CMP No. 196 of 2023 9. There is an arbitration clause in the memorandum of understandings i.e., clause Nos.8 and 9, which reads as follows: 8. Nomination: The Second Party shall have the right to direct the First Party to facilitate registration of the Definitive Agreement/Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney in respect of the Said Land in respect of Said Land in its name or in the name of its nominee/s or assignee/s in any proportion/share as the Second Party desires. 9.Dispute Resolution: In case any dispute arises at any time between the parties hereto arising from this MOU or due to breach thereof by any Party hereto or with regard to the Said Land, the same shall be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Second Party as per the provisions of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 and the decision of the arbitrator will be binding on both the parties. The seat of Arbitration shall be at Bangalore and shall be conducted in English Language. Courts of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10382 CMP No. 196 of 2023 Bangalore alone will have jurisdiction authority to decide upon of dispute. 10. From the perusal of clause Nos.8 and 9, if any dispute arose between the parties arising from memorandum of understanding or due to breach thereof by any party, the said dispute has to be referred to the sole arbitrator. The petitioner by invoking an arbitration clause issued arbitration notice on 13.02.2023 proposing the name of the arbitrator. Despite service of notice, the respondents neither replied to the arbitral notice nor agreed the proposal of the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondents have entered into memorandum of understanding, and the arbitral dispute arose between the parties in terms of the memorandum of understanding and the said dispute has to be resolved through an arbitration. The petitioner issued an arbitration notice dated 13.02.2023 under - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10382 CMP No. 196 of 2023 Section 21 of the Act of 1996, and the same shall be resolved through an arbitration. Hence, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the arbitral dispute to the arbitrator. Accordingly, the point is answered in the affirmative. 12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. ii. Shri Khan Liyakat Ali Khan, District Judge (retired) is nominated as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of clause Nos.8 and 9 of the agreement vide Annexures – B and C respectively as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules. iii. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator and the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10382 CMP No. 196 of 2023 Arbitrator, the Director and the Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bangalore. iv. The Registry is directed to return the original/certified copy of the documents produced by the petitioner after retaining the photocopy of the same. v. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB