- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10922 CMP No. 124 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 124 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR B RAMASUBRAMANIAN SON OF R.BALASUBRAMANIAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLA NO.161, ADARSH PALM RETREAT VILLAS, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE - 560 103 MOB NO.(91)9845943662 EMAIL ID-BRSUBRAMANIAM1973@GMAIL.COM …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M C THIMMAIAH AND SRI. JOSHUA HUDSON SAMUEL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. MRS ANNA MARI LOVITA DAUGHTER OF MR. GEORGE ANTHONY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS VILLA NO.120, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10922 CMP No. 124 of 2025 ADARSH PALM RETREAT VILLAS, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE - 560 103 EARLIER TO AT FLAT NO.216, 2ND FLOOR, ANAND SOMU PRISTINE, GOTTIGERE, ANJANAPURA 9TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 078 MOB NO- (91) 9972994444 EMAIL ID - ANNALOVITA@HOTMAIL.COM …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEVARAJA M, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5/6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO CONSTITUTE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, OR SUCH OTHER PERSON AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER, TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES UNDER THE AGREEMENT DATED 29.12.2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY REFER THE DISPUTES TO ARBITRATION AS PER CLAUSE NO.10(o) OF ANNEXURE – A, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10922 CMP No. 124 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this petition under Section 11 (5/6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for short) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the arbitral dispute which arose between the parties to the petition in terms of clause 10(o)(ii) of the lease agreement dated 29.12.2023 vide Annexure-A. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner and the respondent have entered into a lease agreement on 29.12.2023. The petitioner paid an amount of ₹30,00,000/- towards interest free security deposit to the respondent under the lease agreement dated 29.12.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner handed over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent and demanded for the refund of security deposit amount of ₹30,00,000/- and sent an e-mail on 22.09.2024. The respondent replied to the e-mail dated 22.09.2024 on 23.09.2024. The respondent failed to refund the security - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10922 CMP No. 124 of 2025 deposit and on the contrary, demanded a sum of ₹45,00,000/- towards the damages and stolen items. The petitioner issued a legal notice dated 24.10.2024 calling upon the respondent to refund the said amount. There is an arbitration clause in the lease agreement i.e., clause 10(o)(ii). The petitioner, by invoking the arbitration clause, issued a notice to the respondent under Section 21 of the Act on 09.12.2024. The respondent replied to the arbitration notice and refused to give consent for the appointment of an Arbitrator. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to allow the petition. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 5. The point that would arise for consideration is as follows: Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the arbitral dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10922 CMP No. 124 of 2025 clause 10(o)(ii) of the lease agreement vide Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules? 6. It is undisputed that the petitioner and the respondent have entered into a lease agreement and the petitioner vacated and handed over the possession of the property in question to the respondent; the petitioner demanded for the refund of security deposit amount of ₹30,00,000/-. The respondent refused to refund the said amount and on the contrary, demanded ₹45,00,000/- towards the damages and stolen items. There is an arbitration clause in Annexure-A, which reads as follows: “ii. Arbitration: If any Dispute arising between the Parties is not amicably settled within 15 days of commencement of amicable attempts to settle the same as provided above, the Dispute shall be referred to, and be finally settled by, arbitration. The Parties agree that the arbitration proceedings will be conducted at Bengaluru and shall be governed by the provisions of the [Indian] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Parties agree that the Dispute shall be adjudicated by a single arbitrator mutually agreeable to, and appointed by, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10922 CMP No. 124 of 2025 Parties. In the event the Parties fail to appoint a single arbitrator, the Lessor and the Lessee shall appoint one (1) arbitrator each and the two (2) arbitrators so appointed shall nominate a third presiding arbitrator. The decision of the arbitrator/s shall be final and binding on the Parties. Each Party will be responsible for the costs of appointing their respective arbitrator as contemplated herein. However, where a joint appointment of an arbitrator occurs, the costs thereof will be shared equally by the Parties.” 7. From the perusal of the arbitration clause, it discloses that, if any dispute arises between the parties to the petition, the same shall be referred to the arbitration. Admittedly, the petitioner, invoking the arbitration clause, issued the arbitration notice vide Annexure-K on 09.12.2024 proposing the name of Sri. Virupakshaiah.H.M, Retired Commercial Court Judge – District Judge as a Sole Arbitrator. The respondent replied to the arbitration notice vide Annexure-O. The respondent declined to accept the name of the Arbitrator proposed by the petitioner and contended that, there is no arbitral dispute between the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10922 CMP No. 124 of 2025 parties to the petition and the question of nominating an Arbitrator would not arise. 8. Admittedly, there is an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent and an arbitral dispute arose between the parties to the petition; the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing arbitration notice vide Annexure-K. The said dispute has to be resolved through an arbitration. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the arbitral dispute to the arbitration. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 9. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed; ii. Sri. Virupakshaiah.H.M, Retired Commercial Court Judge – District Judge is nominated as a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute between the parties in terms of clause 10(o)(ii) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10922 CMP No. 124 of 2025 of the lease agreement as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules; iii. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator, and the Director of Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru; iv. The Registry is directed to return the original/certified copies of the documents, if any, produced by the petitioner after retaining the photocopies of the same; v. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28