Sri H N Thippeswamy Vs Smt. Anitha B G

SRI H N THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE H M NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577519

¶11

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI JYOTHI PRAKASH K M S/O LATE H K MURUGESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT KHB COLONY NEW KUNDUVADA DAVANGERE CITY - 575566

¶13

SRI K S MANJUNATH S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS DOOR NO 757, GANESHPETE DAVANGERE - 577001

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. ANITHA B G AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O G BASAVARAJAPPA

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:23482 CMP No. 205 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

R/AT HOUSE No. 207/2 HONDADA RASTE, KALASAPPA GALLI DAVANGERE - 577001

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(RESPONDENT SERVED THROUGH POSTAL TRACK)

¶24

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996., PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE NO.12 OF THE JDA EXECUTED AND ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES THEREIN ON 15.12.2023 WHICH WAS REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.16016/2023-24, AT ANNEXURE - A, BOOK-I, REGISTERED IN THE SUB-REGISTRAR, DAVANAGERE, TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 12 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 15.12.2023, vide Annexure-A.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:23482 CMP No. 205 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶33

The petitioners entered into a Joint Development Agreement and executed a General Power of Attorney with the respondent on 15.12.2023 for the development of the schedule property. The respondent did not fulfill their obligations, and the petitioners faced obstruction from the respondent's representatives, who unlawfully prevented them from proceeding with the development, citing vague reasons and demanding additional payments. This action constitutes a breach of the Joint Development Agreement. The petitioners filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, before the learned Principal District Judge, Davangere. The learned District Judge granted a temporary injunction on 06.02.2025. The respondent failed to comply the terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement. The petitioners were constrained to issue

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23482 CMP No. 205 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

a legal notice dated 19.02.2025 invoking the dispute resolution clause under the Joint Development Agreement and nominating an Arbitrator. The respondent refused to accept the proposed Arbitrator in the reply notice dated 01.03.2025. Hence, the petitioners are constrained to file this petition.

¶37

Notice was issued to the respondent. Despite service of notice, the respondent remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte .

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the respondent have entered into a Joint Development agreement and the respondent had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioners. He submits that the respondent did not perform its obligation in terms of the conditions mentioned in the Joint Development Agreement dated 19.02.2025. The action of the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23482 CMP No. 205 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

respondent in non-compliance of the terms and conditions mentioned in the Joint Development Agreement is a breach of contract. He further submits that the agreement provides for an alternative dispute resolution clause. The petitioners

¶43

invoked an arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice. He submits that the respondent did not agree for the appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶44

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶45

The point that arises for consideration is as follows:

¶46

"Whether the petitioners have made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of clause 12 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 15.12.2023 vide Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules?"

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:23482 CMP No. 205 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

There is no dispute in the execution of the Joint Development Agreement and the General Power of Attorney on 15.12.2023 for the development of the schedule property, between the petitioners and the respondent. The respondent's representatives unlawfully prevented the petitioners from proceeding with the development, citing vague reasons and demanding additional payments. Thus, the action of the respondent in non-compliance of terms and conditions constitutes a breach of the said Joint Development Agreement.

¶51

The petitioners filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an order of temporary injunction, before the learned District Judge, Davangere. The learned District Judge, allowed the application filed under Section 9 of the Act and granted temporary injunction. The respondent did not fulfill the obligations. Thus, the petitioners invoked an arbitration clause by issuing

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:23482 CMP No. 205 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act to the respondent on 19.02.2025 vide Annexure-F, proposing the name of Sri.Veeranna G.Tigadi (Retired) District Judge as the learned arbitrator. The respondent replied to the said arbitration notice, denying the averments made in the arbitration notice and refused to give a consent for the appointment of said Arbitrator.

¶56

Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause in the Joint Development Agreement and the dispute must be resolved through an Arbitrator. The petitioners have made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitrator.

¶57

In view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative.

¶58

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i. The Civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed .

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23482 CMP No. 205 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

ii. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rathnakala, former Judge, the High Court of Karnataka, is nominated as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the arbitral disputes between the parties to the petition, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Rules.

¶64

iii. The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned sole Arbitrator and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru.

¶65

iv. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they are accordingly disposed of.

¶66

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶67

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK

Sri H N Thippeswamy v. Smt. Anitha B G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H N Thippeswamy v. Smt. Anitha B G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bagalkot Cement and Industries Ltd. Vs Vyshali Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Alwyn Steven D'Souza Vs Smt Juliana D'Souza

Shvij Floorings Vs Ithaca Estates Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Srinivas Constructions Vs M/S Tumkuru Smart Ciyt Ltd.

M/S Aanya Electricals and Constructions Vs M/S Jain Irrigation Systems Limited

3M India Ltd. Vs M/S Im Traders