A notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires a 30-day response period. Only parties to the arbitration agreement can be compelled to arbitrate, ensuring adherence to the agreement's sanctity.

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

a. Appoint retd. Justice Ashok Hinchegeri or such other person as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, as the sole Arbitrator under Sec. 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for resolving the disputes as per clause 22.3 06 of arising under the JDA dated 27.06.2016 i.e. Annexure-D.

b. Award costs of the proceedings and c. Pass any such further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary given the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner and respondent No.3 had entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 27.06.2016 which is governed by an arbitration Clause in terms Clause 22 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

22. GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

22.1 This Joint Development Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Joint Development Agreement, each Party agrees that the courts at Bangalore shall have the supervisory jurisdiction to settle any claim or matter arising under this Joint Development Agreement.

22.2 If any dispute arises amongst Parties hereto during the subsistence of this Joint Development Agreement or thereafter, in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged breach of any provision of this Joint Development Agreement, the Parties shall endeavour to settle such dispute amicably.

22.3 In the case of failure by the Parties to resolve the dispute in the manner set out above within reasonable time from the date when the dispute arose, the dispute shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed jointly by the Developer and the First Party/Owners. The hearings of the arbitrator shall be held in Bangalore under provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The proceedings of the arbitration shall be conducted in the English language. The costs and expenses of the arbitration, including, without limitation, the fees of the arbitration and the fees of the arbitrator, shall be borne by the First Party/Owners and the Developer in the manner decided by the arbitrator.

22.4 Each Party shall co-operate in good faith to expedite, to the maximum extent practicable, the conduct of any arbitral proceedings commenced under this Joint Development Agreement.

22.5 The award passed by the arbitrator shall be substantiated in writing and the First Party/Owners and the Developer shall submit to the arbitrator's award, which shall be enforceable in any competent court of law.

3. The petitioner vide its letter dated 27.01.2025 called upon the respondent for amicable settlement. No amicable settlement having occurred, the petitioner invoked the arbitration Clause and issued a notice on 18.02.2025 nominating its arbitrator.

4. The said notice having been served, the respondent had replied on 04.03.2025 seeking some time to reply to the said notice. It is at that stage that the petitioner had filed the above petition, contending that there is no consent or concurrence as regards the appointment of an arbitrator.

5. Notice having an issue to the respondent, the respondent had entered an appearance and filed his statement of objection.

6. The submission of Sri.Rakshith Pai., learned counsel for respondents, is that;

6.1. Respondents No.1 and 2 are not parties to the Joint Development Agreement, inasmuch as it is only respondent No.3 who is a party to the said agreement and as such, respondents No.1 and 2 cannot be made to undergo the Arbitral Proceedings.

6.2. Secondly, he submits that the notice which had been issued invoking the arbitration Clause on 18.02.2025 had not spent itself inasmuch as before the expiry of 30 days on 12.03.2025, the above petition had been filed and as such, the reply which had been issued by the respondents could not be taken into consideration by the respondents.

6.3. Though belatedly, the respondents