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

BBR (INDIA) PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHIVA KUMAR AGRAWAL REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 318. FIRST FLOOR, 15TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560080 …PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRAYANSH SINGH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

AND: Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PVT LTD., Location: AUTHORIZED REPRESENTED BY ITS HIGH REPRESENTATIVE / MANAGING DIRECTOR COURT OF KARNATAKA REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560002 CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO. 3/1, FOURTH FLOOR, JP TECHNO PARK, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560052 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:7043 CMP No. 590 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT., PRAYING TO APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL SOLE ARBITRATOR UNDER SEC. 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARISING OUT OF THE LETTER OF AWARD DATED 09.03.2018 VIDE CLAUSE 24 OF ANNEXURES 2 THEREOF (ANNEXURE P-3).

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed 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 arising out of the letter of award dated 09.03.2018 in terms of clause 24 vide Annexure-P3.

¶22

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

¶23

The respondent issued a letter of award to the petitioner on 09.03.2018. Pursuant to the said letter of award formally issued a work order dated

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7043 CMP No. 590 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

25.09.2018 in favour of the petitioner for carrying out the work. The petitioner raised running account bills (RA Bills) bearing Nos.12, 13, 14 worth ₹20,37,642/-, ₹25,39,930/and ₹5,08,640/respectively. The petitioner also raised bill No.RA-15 worth ₹ 15,61,573.45/- for the work done in the month of March and April 2021.

¶27

The respondent made a payment of ₹20,00,000/towards bill No.RA -13. Thereafter, no payments were made by the respondent. The petitioner completed the works awarded to it under the Work Order dated 25.09.2018, and the petitioner submitted a final RA bill bearing No. RA-16 worth ₹10,22,090.20/- for certification and payment by the respondent. The respondent did not repay the said amount.

¶28

The petitioner moved before the District Legal Service Authority, Bangalore, instituting the pre-institution mediation proceedings registered as PIM No. 744 of 2025. A meeting was held between the petitioner and

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:7043 CMP No. 590 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

respondent on 23.05.2025 and 29.05.2025. The outcome of the meeting was in vague. There is an arbitration clause in the work order. The petitioner invoked an arbitration clause by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 26.06.2025.

¶32

The respondent replied on 29.09.2025 to the arbitration notice contending that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation, and contended that respondent is not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner. Hence, on the said ground they refused to accept the proposal of the petitioner for the appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, this petition.

¶33

A notice was issued to the respondent. Despite the service of notice, the respondent remained unrepresented.

¶34

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:7043 CMP No. 590 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The point that would arise for consideration is as follows:

¶39

“Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration in terms of clause 24 of letter of Award as per provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act?”

¶40

The respondent issued a work order and accordingly the petitioner submitted running bills and the respondent paid only ₹20,00,000/-. There is an arbitration clause 24 in the letter of Award, which reads as follows:

¶41

24. Arbitration:

¶42

The Parties hereto agree that in the event of there being any disputes between the Parties with regards to this Agreement or interpretation of any of the terms of this Agreement (each a "Dispute"), the same shall be first referred to mediation of mutually agreed persons or agencies. If the mediation fails to resolve the dispute within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of referral to

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7043 CMP No. 590 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

mediation, the dispute shall be referred to arbitration. The arbitration shall be submitted to one arbitrator, who shall be appointed by mutual agreement between the Parties. The decision of the arbitrator shall be rendered in writing and shall be binding upon the parties hereto. The parties shall bear their respective costs, charges and expenses of the arbitration. Such arbitration shall be held in Bangalore and shall be conducted in ‘English language’.

¶46

From the perusal of the arbitration clause, if any dispute arises between the parties to the petition, the matter shall be referred to a mediation, and if the mediation fails, the dispute has to be resolved through an arbitration.

¶47

Admittedly, the parties approached the District Legal Service Authority, Bangalore Urban, in PIM application No.744 of 2025. The dispute could not be resolved in the mediation. The petitioner has issued an arbitration notice vide Annexure-P19 dated 26.06.2025 proposing the name of an arbitrator. The said notice was served on the respondent. The respondent has

¶48

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:7043 CMP No. 590 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

replied to the legal arbitration notice on 29.09.2025 and contended that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uttarkhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited vs. Northern Coalfields Limited¹ held that while considering an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the referral court should consider as to whether there exists an arbitration agreement. Insofar as limitation is concerned, the said aspect has to be raised before the arbitral tribunal.

¶51

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh vs. ASAP Fluids Private Limited and another 2 , the Court held that it would not be proper for the referral Court to indulge in an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claim carried by the petitioners is time barred.

¶52

1 (2020) 2 SCC 455

¶53

2 (2025) 1 SCC 502

¶54

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:7043 CMP No. 590 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Considering the proposition of law laid down by the

¶57

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd (supra), and also in the case of Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmuk (supra) , the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitrator. For the foregoing, the point is answered in the affirmative .

¶58

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed .

¶61

ii. Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Sreedhar Rao, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, and Former Acting Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, appointed as the arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of clause 24 of LOA as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Rules.

¶62

iii. The office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned the Arbitrator and

¶63

9 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:7043 CMP No. 590 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

the Director of Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru.

¶67

iv. All the contentions of the parties are kept open including the issue of limitation.

¶68

v. The Registry is directed to return the original/certified copy of the documents produced by the parties after retaining the photocopies of the same.

¶69

vi. In view of disposal of the petition, pending IA(s), do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of accordingly.

¶70

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶71

SKS CT:KHV

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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

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

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