- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10569 CMP No. 266 of 2025 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. 266 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI SUDHAKAR S POONJA S/O. SEETHARAMA POONJA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, PWD AND NMPAT CLASS I CONTRACTOR, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHOP NO.F6 AND F7, ABISH BUSINESS CENTRE, SURATHKAL, MANGALURU - 575 014 ALSO AT NO 2/109/A, 17, JNANI, DURGA NAGAR, KULAI, HOSABETTU, MANGALURU - 575 026. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH SHETTY T., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPN. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MYSORE MINERALS LTD) TTMC-A BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10569 CMP No. 266 of 2025 THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT ARBITRATOR TO ARBITRATE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT AS PER CLAUSE 20 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.01.2022 (ANNEXURE A) AND FURTHER PASS SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER This civil miscellaneous petition is filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of clause 20 of the agreement dated 24.01.2022 vide Annexure A, as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner and the respondent have entered into an agreement dated 24.01.2022 regarding the excavation / desilting of sand in Sowparnika Dam - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10569 CMP No. 266 of 2025 Submergence area, Kundapura Taluk. Further, the respondent issued a work order dated 25.01.2022. The petitioner started the work on 25.01.2023. However, due to the public obstruction, the work of excavation was stopped and the respondent did not take any steps to continue the excavation to conclude smoothly. The respondent did not take any steps to resume the work. The petitioner spent a huge amount in furtherance of the agreement. The contract was expired on 25.01.2023. Though, the petitioners requested to renew it, the respondent did not renew the contract. The petitioner came to know that the respondent has issued a tender regarding the same project on 07.01.2021 to another firm. The said firm could not complete the work due to the obstruction of local residents. In spite of that, the respondent entered into the contract with the petitioner, which resulted in huge loss to the petitioner. 2.2. The petitioner issued a notice dated 28.09.2024 invoking the arbitration clause by proposing the name of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10569 CMP No. 266 of 2025 the Arbitrator. Though, the said notice was duly served on the respondent, they did not reply to the arbitration notice. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the arbitral dispute arose between the parties to the petition and there exists an arbitration clause. He submits that, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act. Hence, the dispute has to be referred to the Arbitration. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has no objection to allow the petition, subject to the condition that all the contentions of the parties be kept open. Accordingly, prays to dispose of the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10569 CMP No. 266 of 2025 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 20 of the Agreement dated 24.01.2022 vide Annexure A as per the provisions of the Arbitration and conciliation Act and the Rules? 8. It is undisputed that, the petitioner and the respondent have entered into an agreement dated 24.01.2022 regarding the excavation / desilting of sand in Sowparnika Dam Submergence area, Kundapura Taluk. The work of excavation was stopped and the respondent did not take any steps to continue the excavation to conclude smoothly. The respondent did not take any steps to resume the work. The petitioner issued a notice dated 28.09.2024 invoking the arbitration clause by proposing the name of the arbitrator. Though, the said notice was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10569 CMP No. 266 of 2025 duly served on the respondent, they did not reply to the arbitration notice. 9. I have perused the arbitration clause at clause 20 of the Agreement dated 24.01.2022 which reads as follows: “20. ARBITRATION Any dispute or difference or claim arising out of, or in connection with, or relating to the present contract or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall be referred and settled under the Arbitration Centre- Karnataka (Domestic & International) Rules 2012, by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with its rules. The place of Arbitration shall be at Arbitration Centre- Karnataka Bangalore.” 10. From the perusal of the aforementioned arbitration clause, it is evident that, any dispute or difference arising out of the agreement, the same shall be referred to and settled by the arbitration. Admittedly, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice in furtherance of existence of arbitral clause in the agreement at Annexure A. The arbitral - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10569 CMP No. 266 of 2025 dispute arose between the parties to the petition and the same has to be resolved through arbitration. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to allow the petition 12. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent and in view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitration. Accordingly, I answer the point in the affirmative. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the following result: ORDER i. The CMP is allowed. ii. Hon’ble Sri. Justice P.Vishwanatha Shetty is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of clause 20 of Annexure A as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10569 CMP No. 266 of 2025 iii. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator, and the Director of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru; iv. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. v. The Registry is directed to return the original/certified copies of the documents, if any, after retaining the photocopies of the same. vi. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA [ONLINE] CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51