- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6996 CMP No. 640 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 640 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. DR. N. VIJAYA KUMAR SON OF SRI.H.N.NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4/4, LONGFORD ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560025 2. MRS.V. RAKSHA, D/O.DR.N.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4/4, LONGFORD ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560025 3. SMT. S. SUJATHA, WIFE OF DR.N.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4/4, LONGFORD ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560025 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N RAGHU BABU., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6996 CMP No. 640 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI.R. SURENDRA SON OF LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.44, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATHA NAGARA, CHIKKALLASANDRA, NEAR BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, BENGALURU 560061. 2. SRI. A. RAVINDRA REDDY, SON OF SRI.A. THIRUPATHIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.C-100, SUAVIY OTIUM, AKSHAYA NAGAR, NEAR DLF BANNERAGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S RAGHU PRASAD., ADVOCATE) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) AND (6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO APPOINT ANY ARBITRATOR AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR, AS PER CLAUSE 24 OF THE JDA DATED 04.11.2020 AT ANNEXURE B, FURTHER APPOINT A RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATING THE ABOVE DISPUTES AND FURTHER PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. 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:6996 CMP No. 640 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition, in terms of Clause 24 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 04.11.2020, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition are as follows: 3. The petitioners offered the schedule property to the respondents for Joint Development Agreement and agreed to sell, transfer and convey in favour of the respondents the proportionate undivided share etc., and the petitioners and the respondents have entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 04.11.2020. The same was registered. The petitioners have also executed a general power of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6996 CMP No. 640 of 2025 attorney on the same day. It is contended that the respondents have committed a breach of terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement. The petitioners issued a legal notice to the respondents on 14.06.2024, however, the respondents did not adhere to it. There is an arbitration clause in the Joint Development Agreement, and a dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondents. The said dispute has to be resolved through an arbitration. The petitioners invoked the arbitration clause in the Joint Development Agreement by issuing an arbitration notice dated 13.05.2025 vide Annexure ‘E’. The respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. Hence, this petition. 4. The respondents filed a statement of objections raising several grounds contending that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6996 CMP No. 640 of 2025 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while considering a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, the Court is required to see whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement, and the arbitral dispute. The scope of Section 11(6) of the Act is very limited. He submits that the grounds raised by the respondents in the statement of objections can be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. 7. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Managing Director, Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. and another v. Sanjay Kumar reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1604, and in the case of Vidya Drolia and others vs. Durga Trading Corporation, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6996 CMP No. 640 of 2025 Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no arbitral dispute. Hence, the question of referring the alleged arbitral dispute to the arbitration does not arise. He submits that in case if this Court comes to a conclusion that the petitioners have made out a ground to refer the alleged arbitral dispute to arbitration, a liberty may be reserved to the respondents to raise all the contentions taken in the statement of objections before the arbitration and accordingly, prays to dispose of the petition accordingly. 9. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The point that arises for consideration is as follows: “ Whether the petitioners have made out of a ground to refer the dispute to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6996 CMP No. 640 of 2025 arbitration in terms of Clause 24 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 04.11.2020, as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Rules? 11. There is no dispute regarding the execution of a Joint Development Agreement and the General Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2020. It is contended that the respondents have committed a breach of terms, and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement. 12. The dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondents regarding the terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement. The petitioners have produced the Joint Development Agreement, which provides for an arbitration agreement, at Clause 24, and the same reads as follows: “24. DISPUTE RESOLUTION & JURISDICTION:24.1. In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the parties in relation to, under / or in respect of this agreement or the interpretation of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6996 CMP No. 640 of 2025 the terms thereof, the same shall be settled by mutual discussion. In the event of the Parties being unable to amicably settle the dispute or differences within 30 days of one of the Party's intimating the other of the occurrence of such dispute or difference, the same shall be decided by reference to Arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended from time. The language of Arbitration shall be in English and the Venue of the Arbitration shall be in the City of Bangalore. The Award of Arbitrator/s shall be final and binding time on the parties. 24.2. Neither Party shall sue the other party without prior notice thereof to the other party and pending this agreement or obligations undertaken herein by the First Party shall be in force and not be suspended and the rights of the Second Party shall be in force. unless thereby restrained by a Court. 24.3 The Courts in the City of Bangalore alone have jurisdiction.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6996 CMP No. 640 of 2025 13. From a perusal of the aforesaid arbitration clause, it is clear that if any dispute arises in terms of the Joint Development Agreement, same shall be resolved through an arbitration. The petitioners invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act on 13.05.2025. However, the respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. There exists an arbitration agreement in the Joint Development Agreement and a dispute arose between the parties to the petition. In terms of the joint development agreement, the arbitral dispute between the petitioners and the respondents should be resolved through an arbitration. 14. In view of the above discussion, the petitioners have made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration. The point is answered accordingly in the affirmative. 15. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6996 CMP No. 640 of 2025 ORDER (i) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (ii) Sri S.S.Nagarale, learned retired District Judge, is nominated as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 24 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 04.11.2020, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Rules. (iii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Director of the Arbitration and Conciliation Center, 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6996 CMP No. 640 of 2025 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 CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52