Karnataka High CourtArbitration and MediationCivil Procedure and Evidence

Karnataka HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator For BEML Employees’ Society’s Fresh Arbitration Against Builder After Earlier Award Was Set Aside

M/S BEML EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTDv.M/S SKYTOP BUILDERS PVT LTD

Karnataka HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator For BEML Employees’ Society’s Fresh Arbitration Against Builder After Earlier Award Was Set Aside. M/S BEML EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs M/S SKYTOP BUILDERS PVT LTD. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the earlier arbitration proceedings barred the Society from seeking appointment of an arbitrator afresh.

The court held

The petition was allowed.

It also directed

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajit J. Gunjal, former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, was appointed sole arbitrator to hear the disputes at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru.

All claims and contentions were left open, and the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 16 December 2026 at 11:30 a.m.

01Facts

The petitioner Society and respondent developer entered into an agreement in 2002, followed by a Modified Agreement dated 4 June 2009 containing an arbitration clause.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2

In earlier proceedings, an arbitrator’s award was set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with liberty reserved to the Society to commence arbitration afresh; the decision was upheld in appeal.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3

The Society then issued a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21, but the respondents did not respond.

p. 4 · ¶ 4 · p. 5 · ¶ 5

The respondents opposed the present appointment petition on the ground that the Society had already approached the Court in the earlier proceedings.

p. 5 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the earlier arbitration proceedings barred the Society from seeking appointment of an arbitrator afresh.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 7

ii.2. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act to resolve the disputes under the Modified Agreement.

p. 6 · ¶ 8

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 11(6) and 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 21 concerns commencement of arbitral proceedings upon a request to refer a dispute to arbitration; Section 11(6) provides for Court intervention in the appointment process where the agreed procedure does not result in an appointment.

The Court also applied the arbitration clause in the Modified Agreement, which provided for appointment of an arbitrator by mutual agreement.

p. 4 · ¶ 4

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11Section 34Section 21

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the respondents’ maintainability objection because the earlier judgment setting aside the award had expressly reserved liberty to the Society to commence arbitration afresh, and that judgment had been upheld on appeal.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 7

The Society had invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a Section 21 notice, and the agreement contained an arbitration clause covering disputes between the parties.

p. 4 · ¶ 4 · p. 6 · ¶ 8

The Court therefore found that appointment of a sole arbitrator was warranted.

05Holding

The petition was allowed.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajit J. Gunjal, former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, was appointed sole arbitrator to hear the disputes at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9

All claims and contentions were left open, and the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 16 December 2026 at 11:30 a.m.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

M/S BEML EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTDvsM/S SKYTOP BUILDERS PVT LTD

Karnataka High Court · November 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment