Dismissed¶69

Sri D Ramesh v. Maya Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2025CMP/906/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru - CMP No. 906 of 2022 (NC: 2025:KHC:40142), Suraj Govindaraj J., decided 10.10.2025. Keywords: Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of sole arbitrator; clause 35 arbitration clause; Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004; agreement for submission to arbitration dated 17.08.2016; settlement award dated 31.08.2016; legal notice dated 17.09.2022; entire-agreement and supersession clause (iii); D. Ramesh v. Maya Ventures Pvt. Ltd.; prior reference and registered settlement award bar fresh reference under superseded JDA; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The disputes were categorically enumerated in Para No.28 of the agreement for submission to arbitration, and only those disputes were referred to arbitration. ¶64

Sri D Ramesh Vs Maya Ventures Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the disputes now raised by the petitioner under the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004, though not covered by the earlier submission to arbitration of 17.08.2016 (confined to clause Nos. 28 to 31), are referable to arbitration under clause 35 of that agreement. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

The disputes were categorically enumerated in Para No.28 of the agreement for submission to arbitration, and only those disputes were referred to arbitration.

¶64

Ratio / Principle

All issues which arose between the parties were referred to arbitration of the sole arbitrator, who has rendered a settlement award.

¶64

Key takeaways

Clause No.(iii) of the agreement for submission to arbitration makes the understanding the entire agreement, superseding all prior agreements.ratio¶68
The question of reference to the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004, which stood superseded by the later agreement, would not arise.ratio¶68
The question of the petitioner once again relying upon the Joint Development Agreement, which has been superseded, would not arise.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator under clause 35 of an unregistered Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004. By an agreement for submission to arbitration dated 17.08.2016 (entered into after the clause-35 named arbitrator was conflicted), the parties enumerated their disputes (Paras 28-31), referred them to a mutually agreed named arbitrator, and agreed to change the arbitrator; the arbitrator concluded the proceedings and rendered a settlement award on 31.08.2016, registered with the jurisdictional sub-registrar. Clause (iii) of the submission agreement made it the entire agreement, superseding all prior agreements and understandings. Held: the Joint Development Agreement stood superseded; reference to arbitration under it, or the petitioner once again relying upon it, would not arise. Petition dismissed. (Suraj Govindaraj J., oral order dated 10.10.2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 906 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

SRI. D. RAMESH,

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

SON OF LATE B. K. DEVARAJ,

¶12

R/AT NO 11-12'5TH MAIN 5^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,

¶13

BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

MAYA VENTURES PVT. LTD.,

¶19

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE

¶20

PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956,

¶21

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFIFCE AT,

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

NO. 927, 22^ND MAIN, JP NAGAR, 2^ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560078. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶25

SRI. M. N. KARTHIK,

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI. VISHWAS N., ADVOCATE AND

¶28

SRI. SUHAS C.S., ADVOCATE)

¶29

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR THAT THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES UNDER THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 10.06.2004 AT CLAUSE 35 OF ANNEXURE-'A'.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶37

"a. Issue an order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the 3^rd respondent BMRCL to pay fair compensation to the petitioner for having acquired land bearing No.70, (NSS-55) measuring 255.58 Square Meter acquired by virtue of the notification dated BMRCL/LAQ-70/R/-4A/09-10, in order to secure the ends of justice and equity.

¶38

b. Issue an order of Direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to QUASH the impugned endorsement dated 29.06.2011, at Annexure-'E' issued by the 3^rd respondent BMRCL refusing to pay compensation to the petitioner, thereby declaring the same as Un Constitutional, illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law.

¶39

c. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶40

The petitioner as the owner and respondent as the developer had entered into a unregistered Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004. Certain disputes having arisen under the said agreement, an agreement for submission to arbitration was entered into on 17.08.2016 between the petitioner and earlier director

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

of the respondent company and the respondent company referring certain disputes to a named arbitrator. The named arbitrator had commenced and concluded the arbitral proceedings and rendered the settlement award on 31.08.2016. It is subsequently on 17.09.2022 that the petitioner had issued the present legal notice for reference of the matter to arbitration. The said notice not being replied to by the respondent, the above petition was filed, notice was issued. Thereafter, the respondent filed objections.

¶45

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute now raised were not covered under the earlier submission inasmuch as it is only the disputes referred to in clause Nos. 28 to 31 of the said agreement for submission to arbitration which was so referred, keeping the other disputes open to be referred to arbitration at any date which the petitioner chose and as such it is on that ground that the disputes arising out of the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004 are now sought to be referred to arbitration under the notice dated 17.09.2022.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that all the disputes which have arisen between the parties had been referred to arbitration. A settlement award having been passed by the sole arbitrator, the said settlement award has been registered and acted upon by all the parties. It is thereafter that the present notice has been issued which is an abuse of process of the Court and the arbitration proceedings inasmuch as all disputes having been resolved, the resolved matters are sought to be re-agitated by the petitioner.

¶50

Heard Sri.Kashyap.N.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vishwas.N, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the papers.

¶51

It is not in dispute that a Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004 had been entered into between the parties. The said Joint Development Agreement was governed by an arbitration clause in terms of clause No.35 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶52

"35) Arbitration: In the event of difference

¶53

of opinion or dispute between the parties such

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

dispute shall be referred to an Arbitrator. Both the parties herein have agreed to appoint Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, Advocate as sole arbitrator."

¶58

The named arbitrator therein being conflicted, could not take up the arbitral proceedings, an agreement for submission to arbitration was entered into in terms of clause No.32 thereof. It has been clearly stated that through mutual discussions the parties have decided to sort out disputes enumerated in Para Nos.28 to 31 through arbitration and in terms of Para No.33 have agreed that the named arbitrator would be changed.

¶59

What would also have to be seen is clause No.(iii) at internal page 19 of the said agreement, which makes it very clear that the understanding constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral between the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof.

¶60

In that view of the matter, the agreement for submission to arbitrator arising out of the Joint Development

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Agreement dated 10.06.2004, the parties had categorically identified the disputes that arisen between them and chosen to refer the disputes to the named arbitrator under the said agreement. The disputes have been categorically enumerated in Para No.28 of the said agreement and it is only those disputes which were referred to arbitration. In the said agreement there is also a reference made to certain suits which had been filed, criminal complaint which had been filed as also proceeding before this court as regards compensation to be received from Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Hence all those issues which arose between the parties were referred to arbitration of the sole arbitrator who has rendered a settlement award. What would also have to be looked into by this Court is that the arbitrator was agreed upon between both the parties and a settlement award rendered which has been registered with a jurisdictional sub-registrar.

¶65

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration clause No.(iii) at page 19 of the said agreement, makes it clear that the understanding would constitute the entire

¶66

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40142 CMP No. 906 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

agreement and supersedes all prior agreements, the question of reference to a Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004, which stood superseded by that agreement, would not arise. The parties having categorically identified the disputes between them, those disputes have been referred to the named arbitrator and adjudicated by the named arbitrator. The question of the petitioner once again relying upon the Joint Development Agreement which has been superseded would not arise. The petition not making out any grounds, stands

¶69

dismissed .

¶70

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶71

NS CT:TSM

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri D Ramesh v. Maya Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D Ramesh v. Maya Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Aveek Bid Vs the Union of India

Sri. Vasanth N Vs State Bank of India

Sri G Krishnamurthy Vs the Authorised Officer and Chief Manager

Sri Padmanabha N Vs Sri v Mohan Kumar

N.Muniraju Vs M/S. Shree Balaji Clearing Agents Private Limited

Nbcc (India) Ltd. Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (Bhel)