Petitioners sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Clause 19 of a Development Agreement dated 06.02.2020. The respondent, though served, remained unrepresented and did not dispute the arbitration agreement. The court allowed the petition and appointed Sri Venkatasudarshana, retired District Judge, as sole Arbitrator.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.7 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURENDRA KUMAR N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR H M NATARAJ S/O H MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.22, ADARSHA GARADI UNIT, N.H.S. ROAD, V V PURAM BENGALURU- 560 004. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
NC: 2024:KHC:359 CMP No. 7 of 2023
THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SECTION 11 (5)AND 12 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO PASS AN ORDER TO APPOINT ARBITRATOR AS PER CLAUSE 19 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 06/02/2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE PANEL OF THE ARBITRATORS AS NOTIFIED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT PREFERABLY A RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE, VIZ., MR. GOPAL, RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE, PADMA GOPAL LAW CHAMBER NO.23/3, N.S. IYENGAR STREET, NEHRU CIRCLE, SESHADRIPURAM EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560020 AS A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE AMICABLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by the petitioners against the respondent seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Agreement contained at Clause No.19 in the Development Agreement dated 06.02.2020 entered into between the parties.
“19. BREACH AND CONSEQUENCES:
That in the event of any dispute arising between the PARTIES or any covenants hereto is to be interpreted, the matter shall be referred to arbitration and each of the Party shall appoint one arbitrator and the decision of the arbitrators shall be final and binding between the PARTIES
NC: 2024:KHC:359 CMP No. 7 of 2023
and the PARTIES hereto shall endeavor amicably settle their disputes on differences. The Arbitration proceedings shall be subject to the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act of 1996 and the ordinances thereto and the Enactments shall be applicable.”
arose between the parties in relation to the aforesaid Agreement containing the aforesaid arbitration agreement / clause, the petitioners invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause and issued a notice dated 29.11.2022 to the respondent putting forth various claims and contentions and nominating and appointing a sole arbitrator and calling upon the respondent to give his concurrence / consent to refer the dispute to arbitration.
NC: 2024:KHC:359 CMP No. 7 of 2023
clause in the contracts entered into between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the arbitration clause provides for both parties appointing one arbitrator each, the dispute may be referred to a sole arbitrator. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners which is not opposed by the respondent, who is unrepresented as stated supra, is placed on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:359 CMP No. 7 of 2023
6. In the result, I pass the following
ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:359 CMP No. 7 of 2023
Sd/JUDGE
SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Clause 19 of the Development Agreement dated 06.02.2020 given the existence of the arbitration clause and absence of consensus.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B L Boregowda
Lakshmamma
Rakshit
Rohith
Sindhu
H M Nataraj
S.R.Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
