- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3875 CMP No. 50 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 50 OF 2025 BETWEEN: K A RAGHAVENDRA SON OF SRI K N ASHWATHANARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 760, KRISHNA, 1ST MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V BHAT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT RAJAMMA WIFE OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, 2. M N DHARMAVRATHA SON OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 3. M N PRIYA DATTA SON OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. M N SHARANARTHI SON OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3875 CMP No. 50 of 2025 5. M N PARANJYOTHI SON OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 6. SMT M N GAYATHRI DARSHINI DAUGHTER OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 7. SMT M N THEJASWINI DAUGHTER OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 8. SMT M N DIVYA DARSHINI DAUGHTER OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT POORNA HORTICULTURE, 2ND MAIN, 47TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 082 9. SMT BHAGYA WIFE OF SRI ASHOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1573, K R ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, MANDYA 571 401. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 08.01.2026 SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R1 TO R9 IS D/S) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR FOR RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS THAT HAVE ARISEN UNDER THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED APRIL 21, 2007, VIDE ANNEXURE A PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3875 CMP No. 50 of 2025 ARBITRATION CLAUSE 23 AND ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for short) to appoint an Arbitrator for the resolution of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents that have arisen under the memorandum of understanding dated 21.04.2007 vide Annexure-A. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 2.1. Sri. M.N.Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 as prospective owners and the petitioner as a proposed developer of the scheduled property, had to perform a certain tasks in the memorandum of understanding - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3875 CMP No. 50 of 2025 executed between them on 21.04.2007 (‘MOU’ for short). The MOU clearly provides that the parties should enter into a joint development agreement, the major terms and conditions whereof have been spelt out in the MOU itself, within 10 days from the date of obtaining the sale deeds from the BDA, and to enable the petitioner to perform the tasks that he had undertaken as mentioned in the MOU, the prospective owners executed an instrument of general power of attorney, but due to unfathomable reasons that they put forth, the said instrument was not registered. The BDA issued a notice to Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 calling upon them to show cause as to why the schedule properties should not be resumed on the ground that they had violated the conditions of the allotment and the lease-cum-sale agreements executed between them and the BDA. The petitioner had to get Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 to approach this Court. This Court had quashed the said notice and the petitioner was able to secure the sale deeds in July 2013 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3875 CMP No. 50 of 2025 regarding item No.1 and in April 2014 regarding item Nos.2 and 3 of the schedule properties. Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 would have to refund the petitioner a sum of ₹25,00,000/- and they promised to refund the said amount. Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 did not come forward to complete the mandatory stage of executing the joint development agreement. Petitioner issued a legal notice. Despite service of notice, Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 did not come forward to perform their part of contract. Thus, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice dated 10.02.2023. The respondents replied to the arbitration notice, reiterating the contents of their earlier reply and refusing to join the petitioner in appointing an Arbitrator. Hence, this petition. 3. Notices were issued to the respondents by this Court. Despite service of notices, the respondents remained unrepresented. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3875 CMP No. 50 of 2025 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner, Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 have entered into an MOU and the respondents have committed a breach of terms and conditions of the MOU. There is an arbitration clause provided in the MOU at clause 23. The petitioner, by invoking an arbitration clause, issued a legal arbitration notice on 10.02.2023 vide Annexure-E proposing the name of the Arbitrators. The respondents refused to join the petitioner in referring to arbitration. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The point that arises for consideration is as follows: Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3875 CMP No. 50 of 2025 between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of clause 23 of the MOU dated 21.04.2007 vide Annexure-A? 8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 have entered into an MOU on 21.04.2007. It is alleged that the respondents committed a breach of terms and conditions of the MOU. The petitioner and the respondents exchanged notices and replies. The exchange of notices and replies went in vein. The petitioner has produced the MOU. 9. From the perusal of the MOU, it is evident that there is an arbitration clause provided in clause 23 which reads as follows: “Both the parties agree that in the event of any dispute arising out of any terms and conditions of this indenture, the same shall be settled amicably and in the event they fail to do so, then the matter shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties. The jurisdiction for any dispute shall be court at Bangalore.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3875 CMP No. 50 of 2025 10. Admittedly, the petitioner, invoking the arbitration clause, issued a legal arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act on 10.02.2023 proposing the names of the Arbitrators. The respondents denied to accept the names proposed by the petitioner and contended that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause in the MOU, the arbitral dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondents, and the dispute shall be resolved through the arbitration. The petitioner has made out grounds to refer the matter to the arbitration. Accordingly, I answer the point in the affirmative. 11. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed; ii. Hon’ble Smt. Justice K.S.Mudagal, Former Judge of this Court is nominated as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3875 CMP No. 50 of 2025 petitioner and the respondents 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 Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru; iv. All the contentions of the parties are kept open including limitation. v. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40