- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12172 CMP No. 540 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 540 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. S ARUNA NANDAGOPAL W/O LATE V NANDAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT 131 DSR RR AVENUES YELHLANKA NEW TOWN OPP: TO RAIL WHEEL FACLTORY BENGLURU 560 064 PREVIOUSLY R/AT D NO 971/1 15TH CROSS A SECTOR OPP TO SBI YELANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU – 560 064 2. MASTER N KRISHNA PRAJWAL AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT S ARUNA NANDAGOPAL W/O LATE V NANDAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT 1312 DSR RR AVENUES YELHANKA NEW TOWN OPP TORAIL WHEEL FACATORY BENGALURU 560 064 PREVIOUSLY R/AT D NO 971/1 15TH CROSS ‘A’ SECTOR OPP TONSBI YELANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU 560 064 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12172 CMP No. 540 of 2025 AND: SRI S RAVI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PARTNER M/S TRANS CITY DEVELOOPERS HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT NO 32 2ND FLOOR, 13TH CROSS BASHYAM CIRCLE (ABOVE SHANTHI SAGAR HOTEL) SADASHIVA NAGAR BENGALURU 560 080 ALSO R/AT NO 205 SAMRUDHI NILAYA 2ND CROSS , 4TH B MAIN NEAR MEDPLUS AND CVR LAW COLLEGE BHUVANA GIRI BENGALURU 560 043 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.S. HANUMANTHA REDDY.,ADVOCATE) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE DISPUTE AND DIFFERENCES ARISING OUT OF THE MOU DATED 31.05.2019 ENTERED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEREIN AT ANNEXURE - A, THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12172 CMP No. 540 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 31.05.2019, vide Annexure-A. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition are as follows: 3. The petitioners and the respondent had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle all the disputes between the parties regarding the assets of M/s.Trans City Developers, in which the husband of petitioner No.1- late V.Nandagopal was the partner, as per the said Memorandum of Understanding. The respondent agreed to pay a sum of ₹1 crore towards the share of the deceased husband of petitioner No.1 within three years. The respondent failed to pay the amount. There is an arbitration clause in the Memorandum of Understanding as per Clause 19 of the Memorandum of Understanding. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12172 CMP No. 540 of 2025 The petitioners by invoking the arbitration clause issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act on 19.05.2025, however, despite service of arbitration notice, the respondent did not reply to the same. Hence, this petition. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to allow the petition. 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 petitioners have made out a ground to refer the arbitral dispute to the arbitration in terms of Clause 19 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 31.05.2019 as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules?” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12172 CMP No. 540 of 2025 8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners and the respondent have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 31.05.2019 regarding the partnership firm of M/s.Trans City Developers. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, the respondent agreed to pay a sum of ₹1 crore towards the share of deceased husband of petitioner No.1 within three years. The respondent failed to pay the amount. There is an arbitration clause in the Memorandum of Understanding as per Clause 19 of the Memorandum of Understanding. The petitioners by invoking the arbitration clause issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act on 19.05.2025, however, despite service of arbitration notice, the respondent did not reply to the arbitration notice. 9. I have perused the arbitration clause in the Memorandum of Understanding at Clause (XIX), which reads as follows: “XIX. Both the parties hereby mutually agree that, any disputes arising out of this Memorandum of Understanding, shall be sorted out between the parties amicably, as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12172 CMP No. 540 of 2025 far as possible without giving any room for any litigation. In case of the same not being possible, the same shall be decided by the sole arbitrator appointed with the consent of both the parties and the same shall be in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the seat of arbitration shall be at Bangalore. This is a clause of mutuality which would be beneficial to and in the larger interest of both the parties to this MOU.” 10. From the perusal of the aforesaid arbitration clause, it is clear that any dispute arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding shall be resolved between the parties amicably as far as possible, without giving any room for litigation; in case of the same not being possible, the same shall be decided by the sole arbitrator appointed with the consent of both the parties and the same shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 11. The petitioner, invoking the arbitration clause, issued an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12172 CMP No. 540 of 2025 19.05.2025, proposing the name of the arbitrator. Despite the service of notice, the respondent did not reply to the arbitration notice. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement and the dispute arose between the parties to the petition and the said arbitral dispute shall be referred to arbitration. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has no objection to allow the petition. 13. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent and for the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration. The point is answered accordingly in the affirmative. 14. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (ii) Hon'ble Shri. Justice Subhash B.Adi, former Judge, High Court of Karnataka is nominated as an arbitrator to adjudicate - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12172 CMP No. 540 of 2025 the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause XIX of the Memorandum of Understanding, as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder. (iii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Director of Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bengaluru. (iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. (v) The Registry is directed to return the original and/or certified copies of the documents, if produced, to the respective parties who have produced it/them by following the due procedure. (vi) Pending applications if any, shall stand disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47