Despite JDA’s Three-Arbitrator Clause, Karnataka HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Landowners’ Dispute With Developer

In brief

The question

1. Whether the existence of the arbitration clause and the petitioners’ invocation of it warranted appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the parties’ disputes

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and appointed retired District Judge Sri M.M. Pathan as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru.

It also directed

It left all claims and contentions open, directed communication of the order to the Centre and the arbitrator, and ordered the parties to appear before the Centre’s Director on 19 November 2026 at 11:30 a.m.

01Facts

The petitioners, owners of property measuring 18 acres 33 guntas in Doddabanahalli Village, entered into an agreement dated 2 November 2023 with the respondent for development of the property on a sharing basis.

pp. 4–6

The agreement provided for arbitration of disputes by a three-member tribunal.

pp. 5–7

The petitioners alleged that the property had been acquired by the BDA, making performance impossible, and issued a notice dated 5 June 2026, followed by a corrigendum dated 9 June 2026, seeking cancellation and offering to refund an advance of ₹15 crore.

pp. 4–6

After receiving the respondent’s reply dated 3 July 2026, the petitioners applied under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator.

pp. 4–6

The respondent was served but did not appear.

pp. 4–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the existence of the arbitration clause and the petitioners’ invocation of it warranted appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the parties’ disputes

p. 6

ii.2. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes under an arbitration clause providing for a three-member tribunal

pp. 5–7

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, under which a party may seek court appointment of an arbitrator in the circumstances governed by that provision, and Section 21, concerning commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration.

pp. 5–6

It also relied on Clause 5 of the parties’ agreement, which provided for disputes relating to the agreement or property to be resolved by arbitration in English, with each party appointing one arbitrator and those arbitrators selecting a third.

pp. 3, 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 21

04Reasoning

The Court found that Clause 5 established an agreement to arbitrate disputes between the parties and that the petitioners had invoked that clause by issuing notice under Section 21.

p. 6

The respondent’s non-appearance left the petitioners’ application unanswered. On that basis, the Court held that appointment of an arbitrator was required.

p. 6

Although Clause 5 specified a three-member tribunal and the petitioners sought a sole arbitrator, the order did not explain its basis for appointing a sole arbitrator rather than following the agreed appointment procedure.

pp. 5–7