MISC. Petition No. 197 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18069 CMP No. 197 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 197 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI D RAMAIAH S/O. LATE DODDAYARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA V W/O. D. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 3. SRI. SUDARSHAN. R S/O. D. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 4. SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR. R S/O. D. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 87, SLN NILAYA, GARUDACHARPALYA, MAHADEVAPURA (POST), BENGALURU-560 048.
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. GURUCHARAN N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADEESH BABU B N., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18069 CMP No. 197 of 2024 COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR B BLOCK, BAGMANE TECH PARK, 65/2, LAUREL BUILDING, BYRASANDRA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SRI. SHASHANK BAGMANE (BY SMT. LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A RETIRED JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE 26.5 OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DT.13/10/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES 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 (‘the Act, 1996’ for brevity) for the appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of clause 26.5 of the Joint Development Agreement (‘the JDA’ for brevity) dated 13.10.2021 vide Annexure-A to adjudicate the disputes between the parties - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18069 CMP No. 197 of 2024 as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Rules. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The petitioners and respondent entered into a registered Joint Development Agreement for the development of the schedule property dated 13.10.2021. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.2717/2019 against the respondent and withdrew the suit on 27.10.2021. The respondent and others entered into a registered lease deed dated 16.02.2023 with M/s. Google India Private Limited in contravention to the terms agreed upon under the registered Joint Development Agreement dated 13.10.2021. The petitioners got issued a legal notice on 31.05.2023 to the respondent for compliance with the terms agreed upon under the registered Joint Development Agreement dated 13.10.2021. 3. The respondent sent an email dated 08.08.2023 to petitioner No.3 referring to the legal notice dated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18069 CMP No. 197 of 2024 31.05.2023, along with an attachment containing a holding letter and unserved RPAD covers. In the month of August 2023, after several meetings and discussions between the parties, the respondent offered the petitioners to execute the exchange deed to convey the schedule property, and in consideration for the said transfer, and conveyance of the suit schedule property, the respondent will convey and transfer an office space measuring 21,000 square feet of super built up area in the commercial building/project, now known as ‘RI0’, along with 28 car parking spaces together with a proportionate 6,460 square feet of undivided interest in the entire project land by way of exchange to the petitioners. 4. Further, the respondent also agreed to pay the proportionate rents and security deposit they received from M/s. Google India Private Ltd, as per the clause 12.1, 12.2 and 13.1 of the registered Joint Development Agreement dated 13.10.2021. The dispute arises between the petitioners and the respondent. The petitioners - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18069 CMP No. 197 of 2024 invoked an Arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice dated 12.01.2024 proposing to nominate Hon’ble Justice Sri. A.V.Chandrashekar, Former Judge of High Court of Karnataka, to be the sole Arbitrator. The respondent replied to the notice n 26.02.2024, wherein the respondent neither expressly consented nor refused the appointment of the learned Arbitrator named in the notice dated 12.01.2024. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition. 5. The respondent filed the statement of objections. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to allow the petition. 6. Heard the arguments of Sri. Gurucharan N., learned counsel for Sri. Jagadeesh Babu B.N., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Latha S. Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and respondent entered into a registered Joint Development Agreement, and the dispute arises - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18069 CMP No. 197 of 2024 between the petitioners and respondent in terms of the JDA. The petitioners invoked the Arbitration clause by issuing an Arbitration notice dated 12.01.2024 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996. He submits that though the respondent has replied to the arbitration notice on 26.02.2024, the respondent neither consented to the proposed name of the Arbitrator nor denied it. Hence, he submits that there is an arbitration clause to resolve the dispute between the parties. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to allow the petition. 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 made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of clause 26.5 of the registered JDA dated 13.10.2021 vide Annexure-A, as per the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18069 CMP No. 197 of 2024 provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules?” 11. There is no dispute regarding the execution of the registered Joint Development Agreement dated 31.10.2021 between the petitioners and the respondent. Further, there is no dispute regarding the arbitration clause in the Joint Development Agreement which reads as under: Clause 26.5: In the event of the parties being unable to resolve the dispute by conciliation as above or within such further time as the parties may mutually agree, the dispute may be referred to a mutually appointed sole Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any re-enactment or modification thereof and shall be decided by such Arbitral Tribunal. The award shall be final and binding on the parties. The arbitration will be held in Bengaluru City. The language of the arbitration proceedings will be in English. The disputes shall be resolved in thirty working days of reference or within a reasonable period as may be agreed between the parties in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18069 CMP No. 197 of 2024 writing. It is however clarified the work will not stop pending the arbitration process. 12. Now the dispute arises between the parties to the petition. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause in the Joint Development Agreement that, if there is any dispute or difference between the parties regarding the terms of JDA, the dispute has to be resolved by mutually appointing the sole Arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 13. The petitioner before filing this petition, issued an arbitration notice dated 12.01.2024 under Section 21 of the Act of 1996 proposing the name of Hon’ble Justice Sri.A.V.Chandrashekar, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka as the sole Arbitrator. The respondent has neither consented nor refused to appoint the sole Arbitrator. As recorded above, the learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to appoint Hon’ble Justice Sri. A.V.Chandrashekar, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka as the sole Arbitrator. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18069 CMP No. 197 of 2024 14. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause in the JDA, and the dispute arising between the parties to the petition has to be resolved by an Arbitrator. In view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. 15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. ii. Hon’ble Justice Sri. A.V.Chandrashekar, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, is nominated as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules. iii. The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned sole Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS