- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4127 CMP No. 511 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. 511 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR B BHASKER AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO 26 P.J.VINAYUAKA APARTMENT 4TH FLOOR FLAT NO 402 THAMBUCHETTY ROAD, COX TOWN BENGALURU 560005 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARADWAJ K R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS SRIDEVI R AGDED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O MR. KRISHANA KUMAR NO 68/2 CHARLES CAMPBELL ROAD COX TOWN BANGALORE 560005 2. MR. K. YUVARAJ GOWDA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS S/O MR. KRISHNA KUMAR Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4127 CMP No. 511 of 2025 NO 68/2 CHARLES CAMPBELL ROAD, COX TOWN BANGALORE 560005 3. MR. RAJAN GOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS S/O MR. KRISHNA KUMAR (BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BYHIS NATURALL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO 1) NO.68/2 CHARLES CAMPBELL ROAD, COX TOWN BANGALORE 560005 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE) CIVIL MISC. PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT., PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS PER THE CLAUSE NO. 12 OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 25.11.2022 AT ANNEXURE A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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:4127 CMP No. 511 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 12 of Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.11.2022 vide Annexure “A”. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner is the property developer/builder by profession engaged in construction activities having vast experience for more than 30 years. Having come to know of the petitioner's expertise in the above field, the respondents approached the petitioner and requested that they are the joint owners of the residential schedule property, and they intend to put up multi-dwelling residential apartment building thereon, and requested the petitioner to execute the apartment building project. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4127 CMP No. 511 of 2025 petitioner agreed to the proposal of the respondents and accordingly, the respondents and the petitioner initially entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 25.11.2022, prior to the execution and registration of the Joint Development Agreement. Under the said Memorandum of Understanding, it was agreed that the petitioner would develop the schedule property by constructing a residential apartment, after obtaining residential apartment building plan sanctioned from the BBMP Authorities. It was also agreed that undivided land in the schedule property would be shared as per the ratio of 40% to the respondents, and remaining 60% to the petitioner of the undivided land, and also the respondents demanded a sum of ₹1,50,00,000/- towards non-refundable amount executed towards a part performance of the contract. 4. The respondents have received a sum of ₹50,00,000/- as an advance amount, but inspite of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4127 CMP No. 511 of 2025 same, the respondents have committed breach by not demolishing the existing house/building/structure as well as in facilitating to obtain the sanctioned building plan and thereafter, execute and register the Joint Development Agreement in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. In view of the breach of contract, a dispute arose between petitioner and the respondents compelling the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause at Clause (12) of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.11.2022, by suggesting the name of an Arbitrator through arbitration notice dated 14.07.2025. 5. Despite the service of Arbitration notice, the respondents have not replied to the arbitration notice nor suggested any alternate name of the Arbitrator. Hence, this petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4127 CMP No. 511 of 2025 6. Court notice was issued to the respondents, despite service of notice, the respondents remained unrepresented. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a dispute arose between the parties to the petition and there is an arbitration clause in the Memorandum of Understanding, and the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice. There was no response from the respondents. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 9. The point, that would arise for consideration is as follows: “Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause No.12 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.11.2022?” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4127 CMP No. 511 of 2025 10. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner and the respondents have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.11.2022 to put up a multi- dwelling residential apartment building and as per the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding, it was agreed that the petitioner would develop the schedule property by constructing a residential apartment after obtaining a residential apartment building plan sanctioned from BBMP authorities, and it was also agreed that the schedule property would be shared as per the ratio of 40% to the respondents and the remaining 60% to the petitioner. The respondents have received ₹50,00,000/- as an advance amount from the petitioner. The respondents have committed a breach by not demolishing the existing house/structure. In view of breach of contract, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondents. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4127 CMP No. 511 of 2025 11. I have perused the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the petitioner and the respondents. Clause 12 of the Memorandum of Understanding provides for an arbitration Clause, which reads as follows: “(12) In the alternative, in the event of there being any dispute with regard to this Memorandum of Understanding or under this agreement or interpretation of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the same may be referred to the Arbitration of sole arbitrator to be appointed by the parties and such arbitration shall be in English and as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” 12. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice on 14.07.2025, proposing the name of an arbitrator. Despite service of notice, the respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. Admittedly, a dispute arose between the parties to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4127 CMP No. 511 of 2025 the petition and there is an arbitration clause. Accordingly, the said dispute has to be resolved through an arbitration. 13. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute between the parties to the arbitration. Accordingly, I answer the point in the affirmative. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (I) The Civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed. (II) Sri Rajashekar Venkanagouda Patil, Retired District Judge, is nominated as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondents in terms Clause (12) of the MoU, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules . - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4127 CMP No. 511 of 2025 (III) The registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Director of Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bangalore. (IV) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. (V) The Registry is directed to return the original and/or certified copies, if produced, to the respective parties who have produced it/them by following due procedure. (VI) Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK(online) List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49