M/S Sri Balamuri Vinayaka Associates Vs Sri Sathish Kumar

M/S SRI BALAMURI VINAYAKA ASSOCIATES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REP. BY SRI. H. NAGARAJA, NO.40, AND SRI KRISHNA VILLAS, KAGGALIPURA HOBLI, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 082.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. R B MRUTHYUNJAYA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI SATHISH KUMAR S/O. LATE SRI. JONAS @ JONISH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A. NO. 103, OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD, THATTAGUPPE 2^ND BLOCK, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 082.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

¶18

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT., PRAYING TO APPOINT ANY RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE AS THE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:32147 CMP No. 295 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 18 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 02.07.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has signed a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] dated 02.07.2020 [ Annexure-A ] with the respondent’s late father, Sri Jonish. The deceased has offered his property measuring 20 guntas in Survey No.50/3 of Alakabalalu Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [the subject property] for development. The petitioner's case is that, acting under the MOU, it has obtained the change of land use required for development apart from paying the agreed deposit, but the respondent who has succeeded to the deceased's interest in the subject land has refused to execute the Joint Development Agreement.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:32147 CMP No. 295 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Sri R B Mruthyunjaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has completed its part of the responsibilities under the MOU and is also developing the surrounding lands and as such has a claim against the respondent for execution of the Joint Development Agreement. It is seen that the petitioner has caused a notice as contemplated under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 inviting the respondent's consent to appoint a retired District Judge as a sole Arbitrator.

¶31

However, the respondent, who has remained absent even in the present proceedings, has not replied to such notice. This Court finds that there is an agreement for arbitration and the dispute is also arbitrable. Hence, Smt. K A Lalitha, a retired District Judge, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute at the Arbitration and

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:32147 CMP No. 295 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Conciliation Center [Domestic and International], Bengaluru. Hence, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

[a] The petition is allowed, and Smt. K A Lalitha, a retired District Judge, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and respondents and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru.

¶38

[b] The Registry is directed to communicate this order [through email] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru and Smt. K A Lalitha, No.1783, 14^th Main

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:32147 CMP No. 295 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Road, 34^th Cross, Banashankari 2^nd Stage,

¶43

Bengaluru -560 070 [ Email: kalalitha52@ gmail.com ] as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶44

[c] The submissions of the learned counsels

¶45

that the addresses of the parties as mentioned in the cause title are also the current address of the parties is taken on record, and the parties are directed to appear before the Director, the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru, on 04.08.2026

¶46

at 11.30 am.

¶47

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶48

AN/-

M/S Sri Balamuri Vinayaka Associates v. Sri Sathish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri Balamuri Vinayaka Associates v. Sri Sathish Kumar

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

M/S Empire Industries Limited Vs the Union of India

Sri. G. P. Divakar Vs the Commissioner

M/S Mondo Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. Putta Kishore Babu Vs Malur Town Planning Authority

Sri. v.Muniraj, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mohan Singh P, Vs the Chief Commissioner