MISC. Petition No. 79 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18173 CMP No. 79 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 79 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S K A S BUILD TECH A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.ANIL KUMAR M, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.22/1, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 020 (BY SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: SRI. SREERAMA K S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT SREE NILAYA 2ND FLOOR, ASHWINI LAYOUT NEAR DECCAN HOSPITAL CHINTAMANI 563125 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH V G., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) AND (6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT., PRAYING TO NOMINATE INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18173 CMP No. 79 of 2025 RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF CLAUSE- VIII OF THE AGREEMENT STYLED AS AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER FOR QL NO.1024 DATED 20.01.2022, IN THE INTEREST OF 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 This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to nominate the Independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and respondent in terms of Clause-VIII of the Agreement styled as “Agreement of Transfer of QL No.1024” dated 20.01.2022, vide Annexure-A. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The respondent made an application to the Senior Geologist seeking a grant of quarry lease regarding Sy.No.199, Block No.7, measuring 10 acres situated at Devarayasamudra village, Mulabagilu Taluk, Kolar District. The quarry lease was granted to the respondent. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18173 CMP No. 79 of 2025 respondent was granted Q.L.No.1024, authorising the respondent to conduct quarrying operations to remove the building stone from the schedule property. It is stated that the respondent could not perform the quarring operations and therefore, the respondent offered to
Legal Reasoning
transfer QL No.1024 in favour of the petitioner firm. The respondent entered into an agreement dated 20.01.2022, agreeing to transfer QL No.1024 in favour of the petitioner. 3. It is stated that, the respondent was required to make an application seeking the transfer of QL No.1024 in favour of the petitioner. The respondent did not file an application under Rule 19A of the KMMC Rules for the transfer of quarry lease in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner issued a notice on 21.08.2023 calling upon the respondent to apply for quarry lease transfer under Rule 19A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules (KMMC Rules). The respondent sent a reply on 13.10.2023 taking untenable pleas. The petitioner issued - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18173 CMP No. 79 of 2025 another legal notice on 12.12.2024 invoking Clause-VIII of the agreement dated 20.01.2022, and proposed the name
Legal Reasoning
of Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ajith J. Gunjal, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, as the sole Arbitrator, and called upon the respondent to agree to the appointment of the Arbitrator. The legal notice was returned unserved with a shara as ‘unclaimed’. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition. 4. The respondent filed a statement of objections contending that a grant notification was issued to the respondent after consideration of the said application and all the parameters. It is stated that, subsequent to the issuance of grant notification, the petitioner was also issued a quarry lease, QL No.1024, for the extraction of ordinary building stone in Block No.7, Sy.No.199 of Devarayasamudra village. It is stated that the agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent is unenforceable, and the agreement entered into is not registered. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18173 CMP No. 79 of 2025 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel Sri. Lakamapurmath chidanandayya, for the petitioner, and Sri.Bhanuprakash V.G., learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent entered into an Agreement dated 20.01.2022 styled as “Agreement of Transfer of quarry lease QL No.1024”. He submits that the respondent did not perform his part of the contract in terms of the Agreement dated 20.01.2022. The petitioner issued a legal notice calling upon the respondent to fulfil the obligation under the terms of the agreement. Despite the service of notice, the respondent did not perform his part of the contract. He submits that there is an arbitration clause in the Agreement and the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice dated 12.12.2024. The said notice was returned ‘unclaimed’. Hence, he submits that there is an arbitration clause and that the dispute between the parties to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18173 CMP No. 79 of 2025 petition has to be adjudicated through arbitration. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the petition. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the respondent has filed a statement of objections, he has no objection in allowing the petition, and submits that all the contentions may be kept open. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The point, that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the petitioner made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of Clause-VIII of the Agreement dated 20.01.2022 styled as “Agreement for transfer of quarry lease QL No.1024” as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?” 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent have entered into an “Agreement of Transfer of quarry lease QL No.1024” on 20.01.2022 and as per the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18173 CMP No. 79 of 2025 terms of the Agreement of Transfer of quarry lease QL No.1024, the respondent was required to make an application seeking the transfer of QL No.1024 in favour of the petitioner. But, the respondent did not make an application under Rule 19A of KMMC Rules for transfer of the quarry lease in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner issued a notice on 21.08.2023 calling upon the respondent to comply with the terms of the agreement. Thereafter, the petitioner issued another notice on 12.12.2024 invoking the arbitration clause, i.e., Clause VIII of the agreement dated 20.01.2022. 11. I have perused the agreement, which discloses that there is an Arbitration clause, which reads as follows: VIII: Dispute Resolution Mechanism: a) All the dispute arising under this Agreement shall be resolved by mutual negotiation and all un-resolved dispute shall be referred to the sole arbitrator whose decision is final and binding on both the parties. The provision of Arbitration - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18173 CMP No. 79 of 2025 and Conciliation Act is applicable to the proceedings before the Arbitrator. b) That the parties have agreed for adhoc Arbitration and shall not refer to arbitration centre or any other centre. c) That the parties shall appoint an independent and neutral arbitrator of high repute to adjudicate the dispute if any in respect of this agreement. 12. From the reading of Clause-VIII of the Agreement, which provides an arbitration clause, all disputes arising shall be resolved by mutual negotiation and all unresolved disputes shall be referred to the sole arbitrator. Pursuant to the Arbitration clause at Clause- VIII in the Agreement, the petitioner invoked an arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice dated 12.12.2024, proposing the name of Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ajit J Gunjal, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as the sole Arbitrator. The arbitration notice was returned ‘unserved’. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18173 CMP No. 79 of 2025 13. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause, and the dispute between the parties to the petition is to be adjudicated through an Arbitration. The dispute arises between the parties, which has to be adjudicated by an Arbitrator. The learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to allow the petition. In view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. ii. Hon’ble Justice Mr. John Michael D Cunha, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, is nominated as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. iii. The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:18173 CMP No. 79 of 2025 Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. iv. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS