Karnataka High Court
Arbitration and MediationCivil Procedure and Evidence

A validly invoked contractual arbitration clause warrants appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11.

M/S VARSHA CONSTRUCTIONS vs CHIEF ENGINEER (AIR FORCE)

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 08, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A validly invoked contractual arbitration clause warrants appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11.. M/S VARSHA CONSTRUCTIONS vs CHIEF ENGINEER (AIR FORCE). Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of an Academic Block at Air Force Technical College, Jalahalli, Bengaluru, under an agreement dated 13 February 2018 containing an arbitration clause in Condition 70.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, para. 2

After completion of the work, the petitioner claimed ₹2,53,33,586 for additional works, escalation, prolongation expenses and other contractual dues, which the respondents did not admit.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, para. 2

The petitioner issued notices invoking arbitration on 13 June 2024, 30 September 2024 and 6 February 2025; the respondents did not respond.

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

The petitioner then applied under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents, though served with notice of the petition, did not appear.

Source reference: pp. 3, 6, paras. 3–5
02

Issues

Whether the existence of Condition 70 and the petitioner’s invocation of arbitration warranted appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act.

Source reference: p. 6, para. 6

Whether the Court should appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the contract.

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

Law Applied

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for court intervention in the appointment of an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure is not acted upon.

Source reference: no citation

Condition 70 of the parties’ contract provides for disputes within its scope to be referred to a sole arbitrator after written notice.

Source reference: no citation

Section 21 of the Act concerns commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court found that the contract contained an arbitration clause covering disputes between the parties and that the petitioner had invoked it by issuing notices under Section 21.

Source reference: p. 6, para. 6

As the respondents did not respond to those notices or appear in the petition, the Court concluded that appointment of a sole arbitrator was required to adjudicate the disputes.

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

Holding

The Court allowed the petition and appointed Smt. Prabhavathi Hiremath, Retired District Judge, as sole arbitrator at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru.

All claims and contentions were left open; the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 12 November 2026 at 11:30 a.m.

Source reference: pp. 7–8, 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

M/S VARSHA CONSTRUCTIONSvsCHIEF ENGINEER (AIR FORCE)

Karnataka High Court · October 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment