- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30086 CMP No. 128 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 128 OF 2026 BETWEEN: M/S. JEYA BUILDERS (A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM) HAVING OFFICE AT NO.15, I FLOOR, SUNITHA RESIDENCY, 5TH A MAIN ROAD, MALLESHPALYA, BANGALORE - 560075 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER- MR.N.KALYANA SRINIVAS RAO, S/O N. KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS). …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK HANDE., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. MUKKU THIRUPATHI REDDY S/O KRISHNA REDDY MUKKU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT MCI LAYOUT, SITE NO.56, NEAR ACHARYA COLLEGE, SOLADEVANAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA, BANGALORE- 560090. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30086 CMP No. 128 of 2026 THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996., PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATION AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND REFER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT TO A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO SETTLE THE SAME AS PER THE TERMS OF THE PARA NO.22 OF THE SAID REGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT DATED 2.01.2024 - ANNEXURE - A CLAUSE -22 . THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has agreed to sell a certain immovable property to the respondent, and the petitioner relies upon an agreement for arbitration as contained in the Sale Agreement dated 02.01.2024 [Annexure-A]. The petitioner has caused Notice dated 11.06.2025 raising a claim and informing the respondent that a petition would be filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30086 CMP No. 128 of 2026 1996 [for short, 'the Act'] if the respondent does not consent for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The petitioner in the Notice has not mentioned its nominee arbitrator inviting the respondent's consent for such nomination. This Court’s consistent view is that in the circumstances as above, there would not be a notice as envisaged under Section 21 of the Act. As such, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to cause such Notice as would be required under Section 21 of the Act and approach this Court if there is occasion for the same. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 4 Sl No.: 10