Karnataka High Court
Arbitration and MediationCivil Procedure and Evidence

A sole arbitrator may be appointed where the respondent raises no objection under the arbitration clause.

M/S PBI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 06, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A sole arbitrator may be appointed where the respondent raises no objection under the arbitration clause.. M/S PBI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The respondent awarded the petitioner a road-widening contract, and the parties executed Agreement No. 12/2017 on 2 June 2017.

Source reference: p. 2, para. 2

The agreement provided for arbitration under Clause 25.3 of the General Conditions, read with Clause 3 of the Special Conditions.

Source reference: pp. 3–5, para. 3

After disputes arose, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on 23 April 2026; the respondent did not respond.

Source reference: p. 3, paras. 3–4

The petitioner then sought appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11(5). The respondent stated that it had no objection to appointment of a sole arbitrator, while reserving the parties’ contentions.

Source reference: p. 6, para. 5
02

Issues

Whether the arbitration clause had been duly invoked and warranted appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Act.

Source reference: p. 6, para. 6

Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the parties’ disputes.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 5–7
03

Law Applied

Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides the basis for seeking appointment of an arbitrator where the parties’ agreed appointment process does not result in an appointment. Section 21 concerns commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request to refer a dispute to arbitration.

Source reference: p. 6, para. 6

The Court also considered Clause 25.3 of the General Conditions, which referred disputes to arbitration under the Act and set out an appointment mechanism.

Source reference: pp. 3–5, para. 3

No judicial precedent was cited or applied.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court found that the agreement contained an arbitration clause and that the petitioner had invoked it by serving a notice under Section 21.

Source reference: p. 6, para. 6

The respondent’s failure to respond to the notice, coupled with its stated lack of objection to appointment of a sole arbitrator, supported making an appointment. The Court therefore appointed a sole arbitrator, leaving all claims and contentions open for consideration in arbitration.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 5–7
05

Holding

The petition was allowed, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajendra M. Badamikar, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, was appointed as sole arbitrator to conduct the arbitration at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, under its rules.

All claims and contentions were left open; the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 5 November 2026 at 11:30 a.m.

Source reference: pp. 7–8, para. 7(c), (f)
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

M/S PBI CONSTRUCTION COMPANYvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · October 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment