- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9152 CMP No. 358 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 358 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LIMITED A COMPANY LIMITED BY LIABILITY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.409 4TH FLOOR, DLF TOWER-A, JASSOLA NEW DELHI-110025 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 90/2, 3, 4TH FLOOR, SOUL SPACE PARADIGM NEAR RADDISON BLU, OUTER RING ROAD MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560037 HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE RAM GOPAL SHARMA AGED 53 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S GANESH SHENOY., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9152 CMP No. 358 of 2023 AND: 1. MR. NAGARAJ REDDY S/O LATE KOTE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, KODANDARAMA NILAYA DODDANEKUNDI VILLAGE BANGLAORE-560037 2. MR NANDISH REDDY S/O LATE KOTE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 95/3, GOWRAVASHREE ARCADE OUTER RING ROAD DODDANEKUNDI VILLAGE BANGLAORE-560037 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHUVANENDRA RAJU P AND P B RAJU., ADVOCATES) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR FROM THE PANEL OF ARBITRATORS OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE NO. 28 OF THE JD DATED 16/10/2008 (ANNEXURE-B-1) BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AND ALLOW COSTS OF THIS PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9152 CMP No. 358 of 2023 AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RENDER JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI 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 28 of the Joint Development Agreement (for short ‘the JDA’) dated 16.10.2008 vide Annexure B1 as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 3. The joint development agreement was entered into by the respondents with M/s. Akme Projects Ltd for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9152 CMP No. 358 of 2023 commercial development of immovable property owned by the respondents on 09.08.2006. The joint development agreement was executed between the respondents and the petitioner on 16.10.2008 and also executed a general power of attorney on the same day. The petitioner issued a notice on 03.08.2021, calling upon the respondents to settle the dues by executing sharing agreement so that joint tendencies would be brought to an end vide Annexure-E-1. The respondents replied to the notice dated 03.08.2021, vide replied notice dated 20.09.2021 vide Annexure E2. The petitioner invoked an arbitration clause by issuing a notice on 16.10.2021, proposing the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Satyanarayana as a sole arbitrator. The respondents replied on 15.11.2021 vide Annexure E4, proposing the name of Mr. Veeranna G Thigadi retired District Judge as an Arbitrator. Hence, this petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9152 CMP No. 358 of 2023 4. Respondent No.1 and 2 filed a statement of objections raising several grounds in the statement of objections and contended that the claim made by the petitioner is outside the purview of joint development agreement and there is no arbitral dispute. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties to the petition have entered into a joint development agreement, and the dispute arises between the parties to the petition and there is an arbitration clause in the joint development agreement. The petitioner invoked an arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice on 16.10.2021 proposing the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Satyanarayana as a sole arbitrator. The respondents did not agree to the name proposed by the petitioner and they replied proposing the name of Veeranna G. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9152 CMP No. 358 of 2023 Thigadi, retired District Judge. He submits that there exists an arbitration clause and the dispute has to be resolved through an arbitration. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the petitioner invoked an arbitration clause proposing the name of learned Arbitrator, the respondents in turn proposed the name of Veeranna G Thigadi retired District Judge as an arbitrator. Hence, he submits that if court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitrator, Sri. S.N. Navalgund, retired District Judge, he may be nominated as a arbitrator. Hence, prays to dispose of the writ petition. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9152 CMP No. 358 of 2023 9. The point, that would arise for consideration is as follows:- “Whether the petitioner made out a ground to refer the arbitral dispute between the parties to the petition to the arbitration in terms of clause 28 of the joint development agreement dated 16.10.2008 vide Annexure B as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the rules? 10. It is an undisputed fact that the parties have entered into joint development agreement on 09.08.2006 and 16.10.2008. The dispute arises between the parties to the petition. The petitioner issued a notice on 03.08.2021 calling upon the respondents to settle the dues by executing sharing agreement so that the joint tenancies could be brought to an end. The Respondents replied to the legal notice on 20.09.2021 on untenable grounds. The petitioner issued an arbitration notice vide Annexure E3 dated 16.10.2021 proposing the name of Hon'ble Sri Justice. S.N. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9152 CMP No. 358 of 2023 Satyanarayana as a sole arbitral tribunal. The respondents replied to the arbitration notice on 15.11.2021, wherein the respondents did not agree with the name proposed by the petitioner and proposed name of Mr. Veeranna G Thigadi, retired District Judge, vide reply dated 15.11.2021, vide Annexure E4. There is an arbitration clause 28 in the joint development agreement which reads as under: 28. Arbitration: The parties hereto agree that in the event of there being any disputes with regards to this agreement or interpretation of any of the terms of this agreement, the same shall be referred to the Arbitration in terms thereof; The arbitration shall be conducted as follows: a) All proceedings in any arbitration process shall be conducted in English language; b) The arbitration award shall be final and binding on the parties and the parties agree to be bound thereby and to act accordingly. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9152 CMP No. 358 of 2023 c) The arbitral tribunal may, by unanimous agreement, award to a party that substantially prevails on the merits, its costs and reasonable expenses (including reasonable fees of its counsel); d) The seat of such arbitration tribunal shall be at Bangalore; and e) The Arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 11. From the perusal of the arbitration clause, it is evident that, if any dispute or differences arise out of the terms and conditions of the joint development agreement, the same shall be resolved through an arbitration. The petitioner has invoked an arbitration clause by issuing a notice on 16.10.2021. The respondents replied to the arbitration notice. Thus, there is no contentious for the appointment of arbitrator. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9152 CMP No. 358 of 2023 12. Admittedly, the arbitral dispute arose between the parties to the petition and the same to be resolved through an arbitration. Thus, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the matter to the arbitration. Accordingly, I answer the point in the affirmative. 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. ii. Sri. S.N. Navalgund, District Judge (Retired), is nominated as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondents in terms of clause 28 of Joint Development Agreement vide Annexure B as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Rules. iii. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned arbitrator and the director of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9152 CMP No. 358 of 2023 iv. The Registry is directed to return the original/certified copy of the documents produced by the petitioner after retaining the photocopy of the same. v. All the contentions of the parties are kept open including maintainability, limitation etc. vi. Pending IA(s), if any, disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV