Allowed¶48

Ms Priyadharashini v. M/S Patel Engineering Limited

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026CMP/600/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act; appointment of sole arbitrator; Agreement of Sale dated 09.06.2023; TOWNSVILLE project; refund of 10% of Rs.2,22,00,000 with 18% interest; Patel Engineering Limited; GM Infinite Dwelling (India) Pvt Ltd; developer liability for refund; Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International] Bengaluru; Karnataka High Court CMP No. 600 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Shri.B.Shivalinge Gowda, a retired District Judge, appointed as sole arbitrator to conduct proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru under its Rules; Registry directed to communicate the order through email to the Centre and the arbitrator as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

Ms Priyadharashini Vs M/S Patel Engineering Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether a fit and proper person should be appointed as sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the petitioners and the respondents out of or in connection with the Agreement for Sale dated 09.06.2023. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

This Court opined that undisputedly there is an agreement for arbitration of the dispute between the first and the second respondents and the petitioners, and that there is indeed a dispute.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners' claim for refund of the amount with interest remains unanswered, and whether this claim should be answered by the first or the second respondent will have to be decided in the arbitral proceedings.

¶46

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and Shri.B.Shivalinge Gowda, a retired District Judge, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioners and respondents and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru according to its Rules.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), B M Shyam Prasad J — CMP No. 600 of 2025, decided 03.06.2026: Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by two purchasers who, under an Agreement of Sale dated 09.06.2023, bought a residential unit in the 'TOWNSVILLE' project, paid 10% of the Rs.2,22,00,000 consideration, and sought refund with interest at 18% after the project came to a halt. Clause 13 of the agreement provided for reference of disputes to a sole arbitrator under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; neither respondent replied disputing the arbitration agreement or the arbitral dispute. Held: the arbitration agreement and the dispute exist; whether the refund claim is answerable by the first respondent (M/s Patel Engineering Limited) or the second respondent (the developer, M/s GM Infinite Dwelling (India) Pvt. Ltd.) is to be decided in the arbitral proceedings. Shri.B.Shivalinge Gowda, retired District Judge, appointed sole arbitrator; proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26153 CMP No. 600 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 600 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MS PRIYADHARASHINI D/O. SIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶11

SMT. AMUTHA SANGILI W/O. SIVAKUMAR SUBRAMANIAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 502, BRONX BLOCK, 5^TH FLOOR, CONCORDE, MANHATTEN, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100.

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SMT. SWATHI MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

M/S PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED (ERSTWHILE PATEL REALITY (INDIA) LIMITED, SINCE AMALGAMATED, NOW PATEL ENGINEERING PATEL HAVING ITS OFFICE AT

¶19

PATEL ESTATE ROAD, JOGESHWARI (WEST), MUMBAI 400102,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:26153 CMP No. 600 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

REPRESENTED BY MR. RUPAN PATEL.

¶24

M/S. GM INFINITE DWELLING (INDIA)N PVT.LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.06, GM PEARL, BTM LAYOUT, 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560068 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

¶25

MR. GULAM MUSTAFA.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI., ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, PRAYING TO APPOINT A FIT AND PROPER PERSON AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTES AND DIFFERENCES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE AGREEMENT FOR SELL DATED 09.06.2023 IN ANNEXURE A CLAUSE 13 OF AGREEMENT OF SELL STATES ABOUT ARBITRATION CLAUS, EXECUTED BETWEEN BOTH THE AFORESAID PARTIES.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:26153 CMP No. 600 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

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

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioners have entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 09.06.2023 with the respondents to purchase a residential unit in a project that is identified as ‘ TOWNSVILLE’ , and the petitioners have caused notice for appointment of an arbitrator asserting that they have paid 10% of the total agreed sale consideration of Rs.2,22,00,000/for the purchase; that the project has come to a halt and that they must be returned their consideration along with interest at 18%. The agreement for arbitration reads as under:

¶36

"13. The parties agree that in case of any dispute arising in respect of this agreement, the matter shall be referred to Sole Arbitrator, in consonance with the provision of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as may be amended from time to time. The decision of the Arbitrator so appointed shall be binding on parties herein.

¶37

14. The Arbitration proceeding shall be held at Bangalore and the courts in Bangalore shall alone have jurisdiction in this regard."

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:26153 CMP No. 600 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

If Ms. Swathi Manjunath, the learned counsel

¶42

for the petitioner, argues for the appointment of a sole arbitrator relying upon these circumstances asserting that neither the first nor the second respondent have caused any reply disputing the existence of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral dispute, Mr.Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that the petitioners have agreed to purchase a unit that is allotted to the second respondent [ the developer ] and that the petitioners have paid the entire consideration to the developer and therefore the petitioners' dispute could only be with the second respondent especially when they claim a refund of the amount with interest.

¶43

These circumstances are considered, and this Court must opine that undisputedly there is an agreement for arbitration of the dispute between the first and the second respondents and the petitioners and indeed there is a dispute because the petitioner’s

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26153 CMP No. 600 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

claim for refund of the amount with interest remains unanswered, and whether this claim should be answered by the first or the second respondent will have to be decided in the arbitral proceedings. Hence, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

[A] The petition is allowed, and Shri.B.Shivalinge Gowda, a retired District Judge, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioners and

¶49

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

¶50

International], Bengaluru.

¶51

[B] The Registry is directed to communicate this order [through email] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and

¶52

International], Bengaluru and Shri.B.Shivalinge

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:26153 CMP No. 600 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Gowda, a retired District Judge, Address: No.138, ‘Belaku’, 2^nd main, Judicial Layout, Thalaghattapura, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru – 560 109 Email: [email protected] ] as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶57

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶58

SA ct:sr

Ms Priyadharashini v. M/S Patel Engineering Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Priyadharashini v. M/S Patel Engineering Limited

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

Smt. Anusuya Vs Chief Officer

M/S Ecube Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Principal Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise

M/S Nexus It World Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Cropnosys (India ) Private Limited Vs Shrisannidh Trading Company

Mr Rosh M Alex Vs Mrs Lakshmi Devi B R

M/S Hemanth Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs G Venkatadri