Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10029
CMP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 361 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
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.)
Digitally signed
by KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR.B.SAROJA DEVI SRIHARSHA
W/O MR. SRIHARSHA
TH
NO. 102, 11 CROSS, MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU- 560 003
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10029
CMP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
1(A) MS. INDIRA RAMACHANDRA
D/O. MS. BHUVANESHWARI,
AGED MAJOR
RESIDING AT
TH
NO. 102, 11 CROSS,
MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.
1(B) MR. GAUTAM RAMACHANDRA
D/O. MS. BHUVANESHWARI,
AGED MAJOR
RESIDING AT
TH
NO. 102, 11 CROSS,
MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A &B)]
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.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10029
CMP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. 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.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this civil
miscellaneous petition are as follows:
3. 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
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10029
CMP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10029
CMP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
31.03.2011. The respondent issued a reply dated
29.05.2024 refusing to refer the dispute to the
arbitration. Hence, this petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
5. 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.
Per contra
6. , learned counsel for the respondent
submits no objection to allow the petition by
appointing the sole arbitrator.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10029
CMP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. Perused the records, and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The point that would arise for consideration is as
follows:
“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?”
9. 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
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10029
CMP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.
10. I have perused the arbitration clause, at Clause 34 of
the Joint Development Agreement at Annexure-A,
which reads as follows :
34. ARBITRATION :
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:
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10029
CMP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
(a) All proceedings in any arbitration shall
be conducted in English;
(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 ;
(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;
(d) Seat of such arbitration tribunal shall
be at Bangalore only;
(e) The Arbitration Proceedings shall be
governed by the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996;”
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10029
CMP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
11. 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.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent submits no
objection to appoint the Sole Arbitrator.
13. 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.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10029
CMP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
14. 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.
15. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition
is allowed ;
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;
iii. The Registry is directed to
communicate this order to the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10029
CMP No. 361 of 2025
HC-KAR
learned Arbitrator, and the
Arbitration and Conciliation
Centre, Bengaluru;
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.
v. All the contentions of the parties
are kept open including
limitation.
vi. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
CT:KHV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69