An invoked arbitration clause warrants appointment of an arbitrator, leaving substantive objections open.

The petitioner alleged that the respondents agreed to sell him the schedule property for ₹13,50,000 and received ₹12,00,000 as part consideration under an Agreement of Sale dated 19 August 2014.

The agreement contained a clause providing for arbitration of disputes by an arbitrator mutually agreed upon by the parties.

After disputes arose, the petitioner issued a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on 28 October 2022.

The respondents did not respond, and the petitioner applied under Section 11(6) for appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Certain respondents opposed the application, contending that the property had been granted under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, and its alienation was prohibited by the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.

1. Whether the existence of an arbitration clause, the disputes between the parties, and the petitioner’s invocation of the clause warranted appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act.

2. Whether the respondents’ contention concerning the grant of the property and statutory restrictions on its alienation prevented appointment of an arbitrator at this stage.

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

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

The agreement’s arbitration clause provided that disputes arising from it would be referred to an arbitrator mutually agreed upon by the parties.

The Court cited no precedent and did not determine the legal effect of the alleged land-grant restrictions.

The Court found that the Agreement of Sale contained an arbitration clause, disputes had arisen in relation to the agreement, and the petitioner had invoked arbitration by notice under Section 21.

Although the respondents raised the land-grant and alienation-prohibition objection, the Court did not decide its merits; it proceeded to appoint an arbitrator and expressly left all claims and contentions open.

The parties’ claims and contentions were left open, and they were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 19 October 2026 at 11:30 a.m.