MISC. Petition No. 538 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16267 CMP No. 538 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 538 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S SENSATION VIJETHA INFRA DEVELOPERS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.12-1-520, ANAND NAGAR, BANDLAGUDA, NAGOLE, MEDCHAL -MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR.MAHESHKUMAR S KALRO (BY MS. USHA S NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHESH ARAKALGUD SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. SRI. V MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE VENKATASHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
Legal Reasoning
2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O V.MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SRI. ANAND S/O. V. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT 9TH WARD, PARVATHAPURA, MARALUBAAGILU DEVANAHALLI, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16267 CMP No. 538 of 2024 BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA-562 110. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.G GOPALASWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11 (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO APPOINT SRI. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 67, 7TH CROSS, NEAR PRIYA SCHOOL, LINGARAJPURAM, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU-560 084 AS A SOLE ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF AS PER CLAUSE 10.1 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 07.08.2019 (ANNEXURE-C) TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN AND ALSO PASS SUCH OTHER DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM IT FIT AND NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND 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, for the appointment of the sale Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arise between the petitioner and respondents in terms of Clause 10.1 of the Memorandum of understanding dated 07.08.2019 vide Annexure - C as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16267 CMP No. 538 of 2024 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The parties entered into a registered Memorandum of Understanding on 07.08.2019 for the development of the schedule property. Thereafter, based on the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties entered into a Joint Development agreement, and a General Power of Attorney was executed by the respondents in favour of the partners of the petitioner on 12.12.2019. After executing the said agreements, due to various circumstances, the respondents did not come forward to honor their side of the obligation. In the meantime, the respondents issued a unilateral notice of termination dated 25.07.2022 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.08.2019, to which the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 26.11.2022 denying such termination and calling upon the respondents to perform their obligation as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.08.2019. The respondents issued a frivolous reply on 19.12.2022. As the respondents did not come forward - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16267 CMP No. 538 of 2024 to honour the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim measures in Com.AA.No.182/2023. The said application was dismissed. The petitioner preferred an application in Com.A.P No.477/2023 and the same is pending consideration. The petitioner issued a legal notice dated 25.04.2023 invoking the Arbitration Clause at as per 10(1) of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 07.08.2019, calling upon the respondents to resolve the dispute, and proposed the name of A.C Balaraj as an Arbitrator for the said purpose. Despite receipt of legal notice, the respondents kept quiet and did not replied to the legal notice. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. 4. Perused the records, and considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16267 CMP No. 538 of 2024 The point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of Clause 10(1) of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.08.2019 as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner and respondents have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.08.2019. A dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner issued a legal notice calling upon the respondents to comply with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. Despite service of notice, the respondents did not comply with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding and perform their part of obligations. There is an Arbitration Clause provided in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.08.2019, which reads as follows: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16267 CMP No. 538 of 2024 10) Arbitration: 10.1) In the event of there being any dispute with regards to this Memorandum of Understanding or interpretation of any of the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of Understanding the same shall be referred to arbitration of a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the parties and as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The seat of such Arbitration shall be Bangalore; 6. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 7.8.2019 provides an Arbitration Clause that, if any dispute arises with regards to the Memorandum of Understanding, the same shall be referred to the Arbitration, and the sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the parties. Pursuant to the Arbitration Clause, the petitioner issued an arbitration notice to the respondent under Section 21 of Act, 1996 dated 25.04.2023 vide Annexure - Q proposing the name of Sri. A.C. Balaraj, Advocate as an Arbitrator. The respondent did not reply to the arbitration notice. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to file this petition. As there is an Arbitration Clause, the dispute has to be resolved between the parties through Arbitration. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16267 CMP No. 538 of 2024 7. Learned counsel for respondents submits no objection to allow the petition. 8. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made a ground to refer the matter to the sole arbitrator. 9.
Decision
In view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the 'Affirmative'. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. ii. Justice K.N. Keshava Narayana, 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 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and rules. iii. The Office is directed to communicate this order to learned Arbitrator, and the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16267 CMP No. 538 of 2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8