IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 347 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

MR. ELIAS SANCTIS S/O LATE. MARCEL SANCTIS, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT PADDALA HOUSE, AIKALA POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.

PIN- 575006 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK &

SRI. CHETHAN CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. IMTHIYAZ AHAMAED C S/O. MR. AHMED C AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, Digitally signed RESIDING AT CEEKAY COTTAGE, by SHWETHA MAHAKALIPADPU, MARNAMIKATTA, RAGHAVENDRA MANGALURU , D.K. DISTRICT.

Location: HIGH COURT OF PIN- 575002 KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (V/O/D 10.10.2025 M.C. BHASKAR)

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) & (6) OF THE ARBITRATOIN AND CONCILLIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE ABOVE CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO APPOINT A SOLE INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENT AS PROVIDED UNDER CLAUSE 25 OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-STORIED COMMERCIAL CUM RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING DATED 08/12/2011 TO ADJUDICATE AND RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS CMP, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Appoint a sole independent arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claims of the petitioner against the respondent as provided under clause 25 of the Joint Development Agreement for Construction of Multi- Storied Commercial cum Residential Apartment building dated 08/12/2011 to adjudicate and resolve the dispute between the parties copy of which is produced at Annexure-A.

b. Grant costs of this petition to the petitioner and such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. A Joint Development Agreement came to be executed between the petitioner and the respondent on 08.12.2011. The said Joint Development Agreement is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of Clause 25, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

“25. Arbitration: Any dispute arising out of this agreement whether it be regarding the interpretation of the clauses or disputes arising under this agreement shall be referred to the arbitration of a mutually agreed sole arbitrator constituted under the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. In the event of the parties failing to arrive at the appointment of an arbitrator as mutually agreed upon, the parties shall be subjected to the provisions of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996.

3. There being dispute as regards non-payment of delay compensation and non-return of the documents, the petitioner had issued a notice on 30.06.2023 as also invoked the arbitration clause nominating its arbitrator. The respondent by its reply dated 26.07.2023 had contended that the agreement as stood terminated and as such, the question of payment of any delay compensation would not arise. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Notice having been issued on the respondent, though served, the respondent chose to be unrepresented. Hence, notice was also directed to be served on the counsel who had issued the reply notice. The said counsel also having been served, no representation has been made on the part of the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would restrict the claim only insofar as return of the original documents are concerned since the same is a continuing cause of action. Restricting the claim of the petitioner to the above, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) CMP is allow