Smt. Vani Seshadri, Vs Sri Wahid Fyzh Khan

SRI. RAVI KIRAN S/O LATE SRI. P. RAJAGOPALA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.20, F STREET, CLEVELAND TOWN BANGALORE - 560 005. AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.487, GAM GOURAVADRI 1A CROSS, 5TH MAIN RAOD BHARAT RATHNA JRD TATANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. HARIKRISHMA PRAMOD, ADVOCATE AND SRI. B. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43857 CMP No. 580 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. WAHID FYZH KHAN, S/O LATE MR. KABEER AHMED KHAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO. P2 PALM DE HOODS, NO.19, 7^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN KAMMANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS POST BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA V, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) AND (6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996., PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR SRI. V.H. SAMBRANI, RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE BANGALORE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS PER ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH NO.41 OF PAGE NO.25 ie., ANY DIFFERENCES OF DISPUTES THAT MAY ARISE, WITH REGARD TO THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS INDENTURE, SHALL BE AMICABLY RESOLVED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO BUT IN THE EVENT OF BEING UNABLE TO REACH SOME CONSENSUS IN THE MATTER, THE PARTIES HEREIN, SHALL REFER THE MATTER, THE PARTIES HEREIN, MUTUALLY AGREE TO REFER THE MATTER, TO AN ARBITRATOR, DULY APPOINTED FOR THE PURPOSE, JOINTLY. THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 SHALL GOVERN SUCH ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER SO PASSED IN PROCESS, SHALL BE BINDING ON ALL THE PARTIES CONCERNED. OF THE REGISTERED JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 06.01.2020 AS ANNEXURE A THROUGH ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS.

¶22

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

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:43857 CMP No. 580 of 2024

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶29

following reliefs:

¶30

"Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays this Hon'ble Court:

¶31

(a) To appoint an Arbitrator Sri.V.H.Sambrani, Retired District and Session Judge, Bangalore for adjudication of the disputes between the parties as per arbitration clause in accordance with paragraph No.41 of page 25 i.e., "Any differences or disputes that may arise, with regard to the interpretation/s of this Indenture, shall be amicably resolved between the parties hereto but in the event of being unable to reach some consensus in the matter, to an Arbitrator, duly appointed for the purpose, jointly. The provisions of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 shall be binding on all the parties concerned" of the registered joint development agreement dated 06.01.2020 as Annexure-A through Arbitration proceedings.

¶32

b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶33

c) Cost of the proceedings."

¶34

Petitioners and the respondent had entered into a

¶35

Joint Development Agreement on 06.01.2020 which

¶36

is governed by an arbitral clause in Clause 41, which

¶37

is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶38

" 41. Any differences or disputes that may arise, with regard to the interpretation/s of this indenture, shall be amicably resolved between

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43857 CMP No. 580 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the parties hereto but in the event of being unable to reach some consensus in the matter, the parties herein, mutually agree to refer the matter, to an Arbitrator, duly appointed for the purpose, jointly. The provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, shall govern such Arbitration proceedings and the order so passed, in the process, shall be binding on all the parties concerned."

¶42

Alleging that the respondent has not completed the development works, the petitioners had invoked the arbitration clause and nominated its arbitrator on 10.10.2024. The said notice had been served on the respondent.

¶43

There being no concurrence, the petitioners had approached this Court.

¶44

Notice having been issued, the respondent has entered appearance.

¶45

The submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioners have not complied with the terms of the Joint Development Agreement and as

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:43857 CMP No. 580 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

such, the petitioners cannot invoke the arbitration

¶50

clause under the said agreement.

¶51

Having heard both the counsels, whether there is any compliance made by the petitioners and respondent or not would have to be decided by the arbitrator who is appointed and the same cannot be decided by this Court in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶52

In that view of the matter, considering the Joint Development Agreement is not in dispute, so also the arbitration clause governing the said document and agreement not being in dispute.

¶53

The disputes between the parties as regards the obligations under the said Joint Development Agreement being under dispute.

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:43857 CMP No. 580 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

10. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) CMP is allowed.

¶60

ii) Shri.M.B.Kulkarni, a retired District Judge is appointed as sole arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties under the under the aegis of the Arbitration Centre attached to this Court.

¶61

iii) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre for doing the needful.

¶62

iv) Since the order is passed in the presence of both the counsel, they shall appear before the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru without requirement of any further notice at 02.30 p.m. on 12.11.2025.

¶63

v) All contentions are kept open.

¶64

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶65

rv

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 CT: BHK

Smt. Vani Seshadri, v. Sri Wahid Fyzh Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vani Seshadri, v. Sri Wahid Fyzh Khan

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

Sri Satish Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Karnataka Rajya Chillare Lottery Maratagarara Sangha (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Thara Vs the State of Karnataka

Pratham Motors Private Limited Vs Everstrat Property Managment Private Limited

Sri Subhash Mehta Vs M/S Baba Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Sree Shiradi Sai Baba Charitable Trust (R) Vs the Secretary