Allowed

M/S G K Shelters Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. C G Channa Keshava

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026CMP/505/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act arising from a joint development agreement containing an arbitration clause. Both sides sought appointment of an arbitrator; no one objected. The court allowed both petitions and nominated a former High Court judge as sole arbitrator, keeping all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions allowed; Hon'ble Sri. Justice Subhash B. Adi, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka nominated as arbitrator under Clause 22; contentions kept open.

M/S G K Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. C G Channa Keshava — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 505 OF 2024

¶9

C/W

¶10

CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 755 OF 2025

¶11

IN CMP No. 505/2024

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

M/S G K SHELTERS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.27, 9^TH MAINROAD JAYANAGAR, 3^RD BLOCK BANGALORE 560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO MR. K N GOUTHAM NAIDU SON OF MR. N .NARASIMHALU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

(BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

MR. C G CHANNA KESHAVA S/O LATE C GIRIRAJA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶20

SMT. VASANTHI KESHAVA

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

WIFE OF C G CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶24

SRI CHETHAN C SONF OF C G CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶25

SRI ROSHAN C SON OF C G CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶26

RESPONDENT Nos. 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT PLOT NO. 889 1^ST BLOCK, 1^ST CROSS RAMAKRSIHNA NAGAR MYSORE 570 0022

¶27

SRI C G CHINNA SWAMY S/O LATE C GIRIRAJA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶28

SMT. INDUMATI WIFE OF C G CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶29

SMT. VINAYA CHINNASWAMY DAUGHTER OF C G CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶30

SMT. SOUMYA CHINNASWAMY DAUGHTER OF C G CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶31

RESPONDENT Nos. 5 TO 8 ARE R/AT NO. 705, HMT LAYOUT, V B NAGAR R T NAGAR POST BANGALORE 560 032

¶32

SRI C G PURUSHOTHAM

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

S/O LATE C GIRIRAJA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶36

SMT. USHA P WIFE OF C G PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶37

SRI NITHIN PURUSHOTHAM SON OF C G PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶38

SMT. POOJITHA DAUGHTER OF C G PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶39

RESPONDENT Nos. 9 TO 12 ARE R/AT NO. 146, 6^TH MAIN 3RD STAGE, GOKULAM MYSORE 570002

¶40

SMT. SWARAJYA LAKSHMI D/O LATE C GIRIRAJA GOWDA AGED ABOUT63 YEARS R/AT BHUVANA NURSING HOME SUNDAR NAGAR GOKUL EXTENSION BANGALORE - 560054.

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R12 R13 IS SERVED)

¶43

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11 (6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT. PRAYING TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS AND I. TO APPOINT SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN TERMS OF ANNEXURE A I.E., JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 02.07.2012 CLAUSE NO.22 ANNEXURE A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. II. TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMED FIT.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

IN CMP NO. 755/2025

¶48

BETWEEN:

¶49

SMT RATHNAMMA W/O LATE. GIRIRAJE GOWDA, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HER LR'S PETITIONER Nos.1,5,9 & 13

¶50

MR. C.G CHANNAKESHAVA

¶51

S/O LATE. GIRIRAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶52

MRS. VASANTHI KESHAVA W/O C.G CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶53

MR. CHETHAN C S/O C.G CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶54

MR. ROSHAN C S/O C.G CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶55

PETITIONER Nos.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 889, 1ST BLOCK, 1ST CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE 570 022.

¶56

MR. C.G CHINNASWAMY S/O LATE. GIRIRAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶57

MRS. INDUMATI W/O C.G CHINNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶58

MRS. VINAYA CHINNASWAMY D/O C.G CHINNASWAMY

¶59

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶62

SMT. SOUMYA CHINNASWAMY D/O C.G CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER (FATHER) SRI. C.G CHINNASWAMY

¶63

PETITIONER Nos. 5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 705, HMT LAYOUT, V.B NAGAR, R.T NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 032

¶64

MR. C.G PURUSHOTHAM S/O LATE. GIRIRAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶65

MRS. USHA P W/O MR. C.G PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶66

MR. NITHIN PURUSTHOTHAM S/O MR. C.G PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶67

MRS. POOJITHA PURUSTHOTHAM D/O MR. C.G PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶68

PETITIONER Nos. 9 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT NO.146, 6TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, GOKULAM, MYSORE - 570 002

¶69

MRS. SWARAJYA LAKSHMI D/O LATE. GIRIRAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61YEARS, RESIDING AT BHUVANA NURSING HOME, SUNDAR NAGAR, GOKUL EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 054.

¶70

- 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

....PETITIONERS

¶73

(BY SRI. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)

¶74

AND:

¶75

M/S G K SHLETERS PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 27, 9TH MAIN, ROAD, JAYANAGAR 3RD BLOCK, BANGALORE 560 011

¶76

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O SRI. M ABBANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶77

SMT. CHALLAMMA W/O SRI. M. ABBANNA, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES RESPONDENT Nos.2,3,7, & 12

¶78

SRI. C.A KRISHNAMURTHY S/O SRI. M. ABBANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶79

SMT. KAMALA W/O SRI. C.A KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶80

SRI. C.K SRIKANTH S/O SRI. C.A KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶81

SRI. C.K PRASHANTH S/O SRI. C.A KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶82

SRI. C.A SRINIVAS S/O SRI. M. ABBANNA,

¶83

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶87

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O SRI. C.A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶88

MS. C.S ANU D/O SRI. C.A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶89

MS. C.S ARCHITHA D/O SRI. C.A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶90

SRI. C.S AKSHAY KUMAR S/O SRI. C.A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶91

SRI. C.A MOHAN KUMAR S/O SRI. M. ABBANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶92

SMT. NETHRAVATHI W/O SRI. C.A MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶93

MASTER. C.M CHAITYANYA MOHAN KUMAR S/O SRI. C.A MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 14 1/2 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER SRI. C.A MOHAN KUMAR

¶94

RESPONDENT Nos. 2 TO 14 ARE RESIDING AT NO.31, MANJUSHRINILAYA, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE 560 049

¶95

...RESPONDENTS

¶96

(BY SRI. SHYAMA PRASADA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 V/O DATED 22.01.2026 NOTICE TO R2 TO R14 ARE D/W) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) & 11(6) OF

¶97

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN APPROPRIATE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 22 OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 02.07.2012 (ANNEXURE - A)

¶100

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶101

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

¶102

ORAL ORDER

¶103

IN CMP No.505 of 2024:

¶104

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 22 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 02.07.2012, vide Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶105

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition are as follows:

¶106

¶107

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

The petitioner and the respondents have entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 02.07.2012, and the respondents also entrusted the work to the petitioner. Respondents committed a breach of terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement. The respondents are due to the petitioner an amount of Rs.5,69,58,201/-. The respondents did not clear the dues even after repeated demands. Clause 22 of the Agreement stipulates the arbitration clause in case of a dispute. The petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Act in Commercial Arbitration Application No.5 of 2024 before the Commercial Court, Bangalore Rural District, which is pending. The petitioner in terms of Clause 22 of the Joint Development Agreement issued a notice dated 23.08.2024 under Section 21 of the Act suggesting the name of an arbitrator. The respondents have not agreed to the name of

¶110

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶111

10 -

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

arbitrator suggested by the petitioner vide reply dated 02.10.2024. Hence, this petition.

¶114

Learned counsel for the respondents submits no objections to allow the petition.

¶115

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶116

The point that would arise for consideration is as follows:

¶117

“Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitrator in terms of Clause 22 of Joint Development Agreement, as per the provisions of the Act ?”

¶118

It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondents have entered into a joint development agreement dated 02.07.2012 and the respondents entrusted the work to the petitioner. There is a breach of terms and conditions on the part of the parties to the Joint Development Agreement.

¶119

11 -

¶120

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

The petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of

¶123

the Act in Commercial Application No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Commercial Court, Bengaluru Rural District, which is pending.

¶124

There is an arbitration Clause at Clause 22 in the Joint Development Agreement dated 02.07.2012, and the same reads as follows:

¶125

“ 22) ARBITRATION :

¶126

In the event of breach of the terms of this Agreement or in the event of any differences or disputes arising between the parties in regard to this Agreement or any matter relating thereto, the same shall be referred to and settled by Arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in force. The Arbitration venue shall be In Bangalore and the Arbitration proceeding shall be in English Language.”

¶127

From the perusal of the aforesaid arbitration clause, it is clear that if any dispute arises out of the terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement, the dispute shall be referred to and settled by an arbitration under the provisions of the Act.

¶128

12 -

¶129

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

By invoking the said arbitration clause, the petitioner issued an arbitration notice dated 23.08.2024 suggesting the name of Sri.D.Vishweshwara Bhat, retired District Judge as an arbitrator. The respondents replied vide reply dated 02.10.2024 to the arbitration notice and did not agree to the name proposed by the petitioner. Instead, the respondents proposed the name of Sri.Sudhakar P.Pandit, retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator. The petitioner did not agree with the name of the arbitrator suggested by the respondents.

¶132

Admittedly, there is an arbitration agreement and there is an arbitral dispute which arose between the parties to the petition and the same has to be resolved through arbitration.

¶133

Thus, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration. Accordingly, I answer the point in the affirmative.

¶134

13 -

¶135

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

In CMP No.755 of 2025 :

¶138

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 22 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 02.07.2012, vide Annexure-A, as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶139

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition are as follows:

¶140

The petitioners and respondent No.1 have entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 02.07.2012 and the petitioners also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.1 on the same day. The dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondents. There is an arbitration clause in the Joint Development Agreement. The petitioners, in terms of Clause 22 of the Joint Development Agreement issued a notice

¶141

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶142

14 -

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

dated 05.03.2025 under Section 21 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator. The respondents issued a reply on 20.03.2025 denying the contentions of the petitioners.

¶145

The petitioners approached this Court by filing a Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.300 of 2025. The said Civil Miscellaneous Petition was disposed of vide Court Order dated 07.11.2025 by reserving a liberty to the petitioners to issue a fresh notice to all the parties, and approach the Court.

¶146

Pursuant to the order, the petitioners issued a fresh arbitration notice dated 08.11.2025. The said notice was served to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 failed to reply to the said notice and the notice issued to other respondents was returned with a postal shara as refused . Hence, a cause of action arose for the petitioners to file this petition. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶147

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶148

15 -

¶149

HC-KAR

¶150

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶151

learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶152

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the arbitral dispute arose between the parties to the petition and the petitioners have invoked arbitration clause by using a notice. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶153

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 has no objection to allow the petition.

¶154

Perused the records and considered the submissions

¶155

of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶156

The point that would arose for consideration is as follows:

¶157

“Whether the petitioners have made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration in terms of Clause 22 of the Joint Development Agreement as per

¶158

16 -

¶159

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

the provisions of the Act and the Rules?”

¶162

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners and respondent No.1 have entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 02.07.2012, and the petitioners executed a general power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1 on the same day. It is alleged that respondent No.1 committed a breach of contract.

¶163

There is an arbitration clause at Clause 22 in the Joint Development Agreement, which reads as

¶164

follows:

¶165

“ 22) ARBITRATION :

¶166

¶167

17 -

¶168

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶169

HC-KAR

¶170

From the perusal of the Arbitration clause, it is clear that if any dispute arises out of the terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement, the dispute shall be referred to the Arbitration.

¶171

The petitioners invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice dated 08.11.2025 under Section 21 of the Act. The notice was served to respondent No.1 and other respondents refused to accept the notice. As there is an arbitration clause exists, and the dispute arose between the parties to the petition, the dispute shall be resolved through an arbitration. Thus, the petitioners have made out a ground to refer the dispute to arbitration. Accordingly, the point is answered in affirmative.

¶172

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 has no objection to allow the petition, and in view of

¶173

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶174

18 -

¶175

HC-KAR

¶176

the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following

¶177

order:

¶178

ORDER

¶179

(i) These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed .

¶180

(ii) Hon’ble Sri.Justice Subhash B. Adi, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka is nominated as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petitions in terms of Clause 22 of the Joint Development Agreement, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules.

¶181

(iii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator and the Director of the Arbitration and Conciliation Center, Bangalore.

¶182

(iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶183

NC: 2026:KHC:7313 CMP No. 505 of 2024 C/W CMP No. 755 of 2025

¶184

19 -

¶185

HC-KAR

¶186

(v) The Registry is directed to return the original and/or certified copies, if produced, to the respective parties who have produced it/them by following due procedure.

¶187

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

¶188

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶189

RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

M/S G K Shelters Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. C G Channa Keshava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S G K Shelters Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. C G Channa Keshava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqra Juniors LLP Vs State of Karnataka

Miss Akshitha H a Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Ms Vaishnavi Vijay Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Dr. Shankaramma E Vs the Principal

Bbr (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.