M/S. Legacy Global Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dr.B.Saroja Devi Sriharsha

M/S. LEGACY GLOBAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 333, THIMMAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE, 560 052, (REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. SANJAY C.)

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL., ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

DR.B.SAROJA DEVI SRIHARSHA W/O MR. SRIHARSHA NO. 102, 11^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU- 560 003 SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:10029 CMP No. 361 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

1(A) MS. INDIRA RAMACHANDRA D/O. MS. BHUVANESHWARI, AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 102, 11^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶20

1(B) MR. GAUTAM RAMACHANDRA D/O. MS. BHUVANESHWARI, AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 102, 11^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A &B)]

¶22

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 34 OF THE JDA DATED 31.03.2011 AT ANNEXURE A AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10029 CMP No. 361 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking an appointment of the arbitrators for resolving the dispute between parties to the petition in terms of Clause 34 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 31.03.2011 vide Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Act.

¶29

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this civil miscellaneous petition are as follows:

¶30

The petitioner and the respondent executed a Joint Development Agreement and the general power of attorney for developing the schedule property on 31.03.2011. On 01.08.2013, the petitioner issued a notice seeking the taxes payable by the respondent on the saleable area share that was allotted to the respondent. The respondent replied to the said notice on 10.03.2014 denying her liability to make any payment towards service tax on having not received

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:10029 CMP No. 361 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the possession of her share of flats. Thereafter, the respondent received the physical possession of the apartments as per the sharing agreement dated 30.11.2013. The petitioner again issued a notice dated 13.08.2018 to the respondent calling her to make the payments as per her obligations under specific heads as per the Joint Development Agreement. Again, the respondent issued a reply denying her liability. The petitioner issued a notice dated 28.04.2022 calling upon the respondent to pay the sum of Rs.2,07,12,612/- under several heads specified therein. Again the respondent issued a reply denying her liability regarding the service tax. On 05.09.2022 the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing the arbitration notice. In response, the respondent asked the petitioner to withdraw the arbitration notice aforesaid. The petitioner issued another arbitration notice dated 28.03.2024 invoking Clause 34 of the Joint Development Agreement dated

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:10029 CMP No. 361 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

31.03.2011. The respondent issued a reply dated 29.05.2024 refusing to refer the dispute to the arbitration. Hence, this petition.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the Agreement at Annexure-A having been entered into by the parties to the petition, the arbitral dispute arose and the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act. The agreement contains the arbitration clause, and the dispute has to be resolved through arbitration. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to allow the petition.

¶41

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to allow the petition by appointing the sole arbitrator.

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10029 CMP No. 361 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Perused the records, and considered the submissions

¶45

of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶46

The point that would arise for consideration is as follows:

¶47

“Whether the petitioner had made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration in terms of Clause 34 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 31.03.2011 vide Annexure A as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules?”

¶48

It is undisputed that the petitioner and the respondents entered into the Joint Development Agreement dated 31.03.2011 and the general power of attorney was also executed. The dispute arose between the parties to the petition regarding the payment of the service tax. The petitioner issued a notice dated 28.04.2022 calling upon the respondent to pay the sum of Rs.2,07,12,612/- under several heads specified therein. The respondent issued a

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:10029 CMP No. 361 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

reply denying her liability regarding the service tax. Subsequently, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice on two occasions i.e., on 05.09.2022 and 28.03.2024. However, the respondent did not concur in appointing the arbitrator.

¶53

I have perused the arbitration clause, at Clause 34 of

¶54

the Joint Development Agreement at Annexure-A, which reads as follows :

¶55

34. ARBITRATION :

¶56

34.1 The Parties hereto agree that in the event of any disputes with regards Agreement or interpretation of any of the terms of this Agreement, the same to this shall be amicably resolved between them within 15 days of the aggrieved party bringing the breach/default to the notice of defaulting party. In case the same is not resolved amicably between the parties, the same shall be referred to Arbitral proceedings as per prevailing Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the proceedings shall be conducted as follows:

¶57

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10029 CMP No. 361 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

(a) All proceedings in any arbitration shall be conducted in English;

¶60

(b) The dispute shall be referred to a panel of two arbitrators i.e., Owner and Developer shall each appoint an arbitrator and the Parties hereto shall facilitate the third arbitrator / Umpire appointed by the two appointed arbitrators, with such information / documents to enable the Umpire / third arbitrator to conclude the entire proceedings within 45 calendar working days computed from date of referring it to the Umpire who shall pronounce a speaking award based upon the facts, representations and records furnished by the Parties to the dispute and the costs of their respective Arbitrator shall be borne by the respective parties and the cost of appointing the Umpire shall be borne equally by both the Owner and Developer ;

¶61

(c) The arbitration award shall be final and binding on the parties hereto i.e., not only the party present / made submissions but also the Party who has deliberately not submitted to the proceedings, which terms specifically understand and agree to be bound the parties hereto thereby to act accordingly;

¶62

(d) Seat of such arbitration tribunal shall be at Bangalore only;

¶63

(e) The Arbitration Proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;”

¶64

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:10029 CMP No. 361 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

From the perusal of the aforementioned arbitration clause, it discloses that, if any dispute arises regarding the agreement, the same shall be amicably resolved by notice to the defaulting party and in case the same is not resolved, the dispute shall be referred to the Arbitration. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause and the dispute arose between the parties to the petition, which is arbitral in nature and the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice on two occasions i.e., on 05.09.2022 and 28.03.2024.

¶67

Learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to appoint the Sole Arbitrator.

¶68

Though, the arbitration clause provides for tripartite arbitration to involve 3 member panel of arbitrators, the learned counsel for both parties jointly submit that the sole arbitrator may be nominated to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition.

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:10029 CMP No. 361 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and for the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration. Accordingly, I answer the point in the affirmative.

¶73

In the result, I pass the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed ;

¶76

ii. Sri.Vithal Vishnupant Joshi , retired District Judge, is nominated as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of Clause 34 of Joint Development Agreement at Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules;

¶77

iii. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:10029 CMP No. 361 of 2025

¶79

11 -

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

learned Arbitrator, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru;

¶82

iv. The Registry is directed to return the original/certified copy of the documents, if any, to the petitioner after retaining a photocopy of the same.

¶83

v. All the contentions of the parties are kept open including limitation.

¶84

vi. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶85

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶86

RK CT:KHV

¶87

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

M/S. Legacy Global Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr.B.Saroja Devi Sriharsha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Legacy Global Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr.B.Saroja Devi Sriharsha

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

Spandana R J Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Pragya Mishra Vs M/S. Idbi Bank Limited

Miss Rakshitha P Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Indumathi G Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

M/S. Valente Lifespace Creators Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Hebron Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Smt.Nandini Vs Smfg India Home Finance Company Ltd.