Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2.

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section

11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking

appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that has

arisen between the petitioner and respondents as per clause 11

of the Work Order dated 15.01.2014 (Annexure-‘A’).

3.

The facts of the case in brevity are that the 1^st

respondent approached the petitioner and informed that it is

interested in entrusting design and construction of residential

building work at No.25, 15^th Main Road, 10^th Cross, RMV

Extension, Bangalore, on a plot. Accordingly 1^st respondent

issued Work Order dated 15.01.2014 in favour of the petitioner.

It is alleged that the respondents also entrusted to the petitioner

5

the work of carrying out residential building construction work at

their Plot No.32-33, Road No.11, Next to M.P. Rajagopal House,

Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and the petitioner agreed

for the same.

4.

It is submitted that the petitioner had completed

construction works of both the residential buildings during the

period 2014 to 2018. The possession of the buildings situated at

Bangalore and Hyderabad were handed over to respondents and

the same has been accepted by the respondents without any

demur. The respondents are in complete occupation and

enjoyment of the same. However, they have not paid the

balance amount for construction work done by the petitioner.

The respondents have made part payment and have paid only

Rs.3,53,57,520/-. The respondents are required to pay a sum of

Rs.18,44,30,380/- along with interest as balance amount which

is due to the petitioner. The petitioner has repeatedly requested

the respondents to make the payment of the balance amount,

however, the respondents did not bother to reply to the letters

of the petitioner or make the payment of the balance amount

with interest. The petitioner has sent several letters to the

6

respondents. The petitioner has invoked clause 11 of the Work

Order by sending a notice dated 14.07.2020 to respondents and

nominated Sri. S.S.Nagarale, retired District Judge as Sole

Arbitrator. The said notice has been served on respondent No.1

on 27.07.2020. However, he has not sent any reply. The

petitioner has received the reply only from respondent Nos.2 to

9 and they have baldly denied the lawful claim made by the

petitioner. The respondent Nos.2 to 9 are the Directors / officials

of respondent No.1. The petitioner is therefore left with no other

option but to file the instant petition under Section 11(6) for

appointment of Arbitrator. The petitioner has also filed

Commercial A.A. No. 9/2021 before the City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bengaluru, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions in MTNL v.

Canara Bank¹, and Punjab State v. Dina Nath², to submit and

establish that there is a valid arbitration agreement in existence

between the petitioner and the Respondents.

1 (2020) 12 SCC 767

2 (2007) 5 SCC 28

7

6.

Reliance is also placed upon decisions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Mohd. Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan

Gupta³ and Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja⁴ to submit that this

Court has a limited scope of interference at this referral stage

under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 for appointment of

arbitrator, particularly after the introduction of Section 6A post

the 2015 Amendment to the Act of 1996. Hence, the power of a

court under Section 11 should be limited to viewing whether an

arbitration agreement exists between the parties and any

elaborate review of facts and law which appears to be arguable

would be non-determinable at the stage of reference.

7.

The respondents have remained unrepresented in

view of the office objection raised to seek clarification as to how

Respondents No. 2 to 9 have been made parties in this petition,

when those are not parties in the work order vide A