M/S Megalith Ventures Private Limited Vs Sri B Ramaswamy

THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1269/10, OPP TO K H B BUS STOP MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560079 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI.SHIRISH KRISHNA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI B RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O BELERANGAPPA

¶17

SMT Y S JAYANTHI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O R RAMASWAMY

¶18

SRI SESHADRI R AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28719 CMP No. 375 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

S/O R RAMASWAMY

¶22

SMT R SWETHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O R RAMASWAMY

¶23

SRI PAVAN R AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O R RAMASWAMY

¶24

SL.NO. 1 to 5 ARE ALL R/AT RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-562123.

¶25

M/S. SHARANYA PROMOTERS HAVING OFFICE AT NO.06, 2^ND FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560040 REPRESENTED BY SRI RAJESH V M.

¶26

MS/ G M ASSOCIATES HAVING OFFICE AT NO.209, CHARVI MANSION, 2^ND FLOOR, 5^TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGARA, BENGALURU-560040. REPRESENTED BY MR MANISH KUMAR BOTHRA.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28719 CMP No. 375 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

MR B RAMESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O BYRALINGAIAH R/AT SYDAMIPALYA HUSKUR POST, DASANPURA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562123.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. SHREERAM T NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. KUMARASWAMY D., ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7; R5 R8 ARE SERVED)

¶32

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING (A) APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTES ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF CLAUSE 7.2 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 12/12/2018 AT ANNEXURE-A WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER INTO REFERENCE, COMPLETE THE PROCEEDINGS AND TO GIVE AN AWARD WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED BY THIS HONBLE COURT.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:28719 CMP No. 375 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

The petitioner relies upon a Binding Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.12.2018 [ Annexure-A ] to assert a right to purchase an immovable property from the respondents and an agreement therein for resolution of the dispute by arbitration. This agreement for arbitration reads as under:

¶40

7.1 Any dispute arising amongst the Parties hereto during the subsistence of this MOU or thereafter, in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged breach of any provision of this MOU or regarding a question, including the questions as to whether the termination of this MOU has been legitimate, the Parties shall endeavour to settle such dispute amicably.

¶41

7.2 In the case of failure by the Parties to resolve the dispute in the manner set out above within 30 days from the date when the dispute arose, the dispute shall be referred to a sole arbitrator, jointly appointed by the Parties. The place of the arbitration shall be Bangalore. The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28719 CMP No. 375 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall be conducted in the English language. The arbitrator shall also decide on the costs of the arbitration proceedings.”

¶45

The petitioner has caused notice dated 05.05.2023 [ Annexure-E ], after exchange of earlier notices, stating that though the respondents have been approached for an amicable resolution, the negotiations have not come through and that a former Judge of this Court could be appointed as a sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute.

¶46

Sri Shirish Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shreeram T. Nayak, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents, are heard. This Court is satisfied that there is not only an agreement for arbitration but also a dispute that should be resolved by a sole arbitrator. Hence, the following:

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28719 CMP No. 375 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

ORDER

¶50

a) The petition is allowed, and Sri Justice H. G. Ramesh, a former Judge of this Court, 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.

¶51

b) The Registry is directed to communicate this order [through email] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru and Sri Justice H.G.Ramesh, a former Judge of this Court, Address: No.342A, 10^th Main, Sector 7, HSR Layout, Bengaluru-560 102 [ Email:

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28719 CMP No. 375 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

[email protected] ] as required under

¶55

the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶56

c) The submissions of the learned counsels 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, Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru on

¶57

16.07.2026 at 11.30 am.

¶58

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶59

SA Ct:sr

M/S Megalith Ventures Private Limited v. Sri B Ramaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Megalith Ventures Private Limited v. Sri B Ramaswamy

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. Vishal Singh (Owner of Goods), Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

The Commissioner Vs Sri Madesh N

M/S Hind Metals Vs Municipal Commissioner

Sri. Prathap. S Vs the Greater Bengaluru Authority

Smt. Joy Esther Chandra Vs the Commissioner of Bbmp

Sri a Venkatesh Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority