Facts
The petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of a multilevel car park at Freedom Park, Bengaluru, under an agreement dated 24 June 2015.
Source reference: p. 3–5The agreement contained an arbitration clause in Clause 24 of the General Conditions of Contract read with Clause 4 of the Special Conditions of Contract, providing for disputes to be referred to a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Source reference: p. 3–5After disputes arose, the petitioner issued a notice dated 10 June 2026 invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act.
Source reference: p. 6The respondents did not respond, and the petitioner applied under Section 11(6) for appointment of an arbitrator.
Source reference: p. 6The respondents stated that they had no objection to appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Source reference: p. 6Issues
1. Whether the parties’ agreement and the existence of disputes warranted appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Source reference: p. 3–62. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the basis for seeking court appointment of an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has not resulted in an appointment.
Source reference: p. 6Under Section 21, arbitral proceedings are commenced when a request to refer a particular dispute to arbitration is received by the respondent.
Source reference: p. 6The contract’s Clause 24 of the General Conditions, read with Clause 4 of the Special Conditions, provided for disputes to be referred to a sole arbitrator under the Act and contemplated appointment by agreement or, failing agreement, by the designated appointing authority.
Source reference: p. 4–6Reasoning
The Court found that the agreement contained an arbitration clause and that disputes had arisen between the parties.
Source reference: p. 6The petitioner had invoked that clause by serving a Section 21 notice, but the respondents had not responded.
Source reference: p. 6Given the arbitration agreement and the respondents’ lack of objection to appointment of a sole arbitrator, the Court concluded that appointment was warranted.
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The petition was allowed.
The Court appointed retired Karnataka High Court Judge Justice Anand Byra Reddy as sole arbitrator, to conduct the arbitration at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, under that Centre’s rules.
Source reference: p. 6–7The parties’ claims and contentions were kept open, and they were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 16 October 2026 at 11:30 a.m.
Source reference: p. 6–7Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962
Original Court PDF
M/S KMV PROJECTS LTD.,vsTHE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
