2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 239766
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
MR. ARINDAM MUKHERJEE – Appellant
Versus
M/S PEARL COMMUNITY ONE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. – Respondent
CMP 323/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 323 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O ARUN BIKASH MUKHERJEE,
R/AT G-1,
EXPRESS RESIDENCY,
BASAPPA ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560 042
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATIK PANY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S PEARL COMMUNITY ONE
DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,
COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
Digitally signed OLD NO.33, NEW NO.8/1,
by SHWETHA HAUDIN ROAD,
RAGHAVEN DRA
BENGALURU-560042
Location: HIGH
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COURT OF
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
KARNATAKA
2. MR. CHRISLYN CARDOZA
ALIAS MAURIS ANTON CHRISLYN CARDOSA
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
RESPONDENT NO.1,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O BRUNO CARDOZA,
R/AT NO.6/2, HAYES ROAD,
RICHMOND TOWN, MUSEUM ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 025
3. MR. VIVEK JAIRAJ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF RESPONDENT NO.1, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O NAKKADI PULAMBIL JAIRAJ, R/AT NO.305, SRI RAM WHITE HOUSE APARTMENTS, 15TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 032
4. SMT.R SHAKUNTALA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O SRI PUTTAIAH AND D/O N M RAMANNA, R/AT NO.93, DEVI MANDIR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 079 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN FOR R4;
REP BY GPA HOLDER SUHASINI CHETHAN V/O DTD 16/12/24 R3 IS DELETED FROM ARRAY OF PARTIES)
THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11 (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, READ WITH ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015. PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR AS PER CLAUSE 18.3 OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED 04.03.2016 (ANNEXURE B) ENABLING RESPONDENTS TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION AND EXECUTE A SALE DEED OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND PASS SUCH OTHER DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, 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 relief:
"WHEREFORE Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a Sole Arbitrator as per clause 18.3 of the Construction Agreement dated 04.03.2016 (Annexure-B) enabling Respondents to complete construction and execute a Sale Deed of the Schedule Property in favour of the Petitioner and pass such other directions or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale with respondent No.1/developer and respondent No.4/owner of the property. Respondent No.4 being represented by the developer as a general power of attorney holder, the said agreement is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of clause 15.3, which is reproduced hereunder for easy of reference:
"In the event of breach of the terms of this Agreement to sell or in the event of any differences or disputes arising between the parties in regard to this Agreement or any matter relating thereto, the same shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the parties in mutual consultation or by court of law and his award shall be final and binding on the parties hereto and Arbitration shall be as per the Provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in force. The Arbitration shall be conducted in English Language and the place of Arbitration shall be in Bangalore."
3. The petitioner had issued a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act") invoking the arbitration clause on 07.03.2023, the said notice having been served on the respondents, respondent No.4 replied to the same, contending that the agreement was entered into by the developer, the landowner has no knowledge of the said proceedings and as suc