IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 521 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

M/S SREENIDHI REALTORS

HAVING OFFICE AT NO. FF-3, KOVILA HOMES,

7TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS,

BTM 2ND STAGE, N S PALYA,

BANGALORE 560076,

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,

MR. R DAMODARA REDDY,

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GAJENDRA S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI C K SATISH

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

S/O SRI C V KODANDARAMA SETTY,

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 208, GROUND FLOOR,

Digitally signed

4TH CROSS ROAD, 2ND BLOCK,

by SHWETHA

RAGHAVENDRA JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560011

Location: HIGH …RESPONDENT

COURT OF (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR B T, ADVOCATE)

KARNATAKA

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF ARBITRATION

AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ARBITRATE UPON THE DIFFERENCES/ DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE AFFAIRS OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE TERMS OF THE REGISTERED JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 12.10.2012

AS PER ANNEXURE A, ARBITRATION CLAUSE 17.

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 petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate upon the differences/ disputes between the petitioner and the respondent pertaining to the affairs of the petitioner under the terms of the registered joint development agreement dated 12.10.2012 as per Annexure A, arbitration clause 17.

b. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the circumstances of the case, for the ends of justice.

2. The petitioner and respondent had entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 11.10.2012 which is governed by an arbitration clause in terms of clause 17, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

17. ARBITRATION:

17.1) in the event of there being any dispute with regards to this agreement or under this agreement or interpretation of any of the terms and conditions of this agreement the same may be referred to arbitration of a sole Arbitrator to be p appointed by the parties and such Arbitration shall be in English and as per the provisions of Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996. The seat of such Arbitration shall be Bangalore;

3. The ambit of JDA was for the purpose of forming a layout in the properties, subject matter of JDA. A sharing agreement came to be executed on 7.03.2013 in terms whereof the various sites formed were distributed by the petitioner and owner, i.e., the respondent. The petitioner in the year 2015, subsequent to the permission having been granted on 20.10.2015, contending that one of the sites which have been reserved has not been shared between the parties and certain amounts are required to be paid, had issued a notice on 26.03.2025 nominating its arbitrator, the respondent replied to the same stating that no such dispute is available to be arbitrated and as such, no arbitration proceeding could be resorted to. In that background, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Notice having been ordered to the respondent, the respondent entered an appearance and reiterates that the claim of the petitioner is exfacie barred by limitation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying on the sharing agreement, submits that the sites have been distributed among the developer and the land owner; one of the sites, which was reserved, has still not been shared. No agreement has been arrived at in respect of the site, and the deposit made by the petitioner with the respondent has not been returned. It is on that basis that he submits that the dispute is still alive and, therefore, within the period of limitation, as such, this Court ought to appoint an arbitrator.

6. Having heard learned counsels and perused papers, what would be required to be seen is whether there is any acknowledgement on the part of the respo