Karnataka High Court
Arbitration and MediationCivil Procedure and Evidence

A validly invoked arbitration clause warrants appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes.

MR ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY P vs MRS SHANTHI

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 28, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A validly invoked arbitration clause warrants appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes.. MR ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY P vs MRS SHANTHI. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner agreed to purchase agricultural land owned by the respondents.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 2–5

The parties executed a registered and an unregistered Agreement of Sale, both dated 8 November 2023, containing identical terms and an arbitration clause in Clause 13.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 2–5

After disputes arose concerning execution of the sale deed and the consideration, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 2–5

The respondents rejected his demand.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 2–5

The petitioner then sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 2–5

The respondents submitted that a retired District Judge could be appointed, while reserving the parties’ contentions.

Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 2–5
02

Issues

1. Whether the parties’ agreements contained an arbitration clause covering the disputes raised by the petitioner

Source reference: p. 5, para. 6

2. Whether, following the petitioner’s invocation of the arbitration clause, a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act

Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 3–6
03

Law Applied

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for court intervention in appointing an arbitrator in the circumstances specified by the Act.

Source reference: no citation

Section 21 addresses commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration, unless the parties agree otherwise.

Source reference: no citation

Under Clause 13 of the parties’ agreements, disputes arising between them in relation to the deed that were not amicably settled were to be referred to arbitration under the Act.

Source reference: no citation

No judicial precedent was cited.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court found that Clause 13 provided for arbitration of disputes between the parties and that the petitioner had invoked that clause by serving a notice under Section 21.

Source reference: p. 5, paras. 5–6

The respondents did not oppose appointment of an arbitrator and proposed that a retired District Judge be appointed.

Source reference: p. 5, paras. 5–6

On these circumstances, the Court concluded that appointment of a sole arbitrator was required, leaving all claims and contentions open for determination in arbitration.

Source reference: p. 5, paras. 5–6
05

Holding

The petition was allowed.

Shri S. R. Somasekhara, retired District Judge, was appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, under its rules.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, para. 7

The parties’ claims and contentions were left open, and the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 2 November 2026 at 11:30 a.m.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, para. 7
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

MR ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY PvsMRS SHANTHI

Karnataka High Court · September 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment