IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 924 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1. MR CHETAN P TAYAL S/O LATE NANDKISHORE AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

R/A NO.300, 3^RD FLOOR, GOLD TOWERS

NO.50, RESIDENCY ROAD,

BENGALURU-560025

REP BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY

MR RAKESH TAYAL

S/O MR CHETAN P TAYAL

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. J.P. DARSHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT CHIKKADAMMA

Digitally signed W/O LATE PEDDANARAYANAPPA

by SHWETHA

RAGHAVEN DRA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 04.12.2024

SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR R2,

WHO IS ALREADY ON RECORD

2. SHRI NARASAPPA

S/O LATE PEDDANARAYANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

3. SMT SHYAMALAMMA W/O SRI NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

4. SHRI NARENDRA S/O LATE NARASAPPA PEDDANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS MINOR PRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN SHRI NARASAPPA

5. KUM LATHA S/O SHRI NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS MINOR PRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN SHRI NARASAPPA ALL RE R/AT BAGEPALLI TOWN 13^TH WARD BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 207 …RESPONDENTS (R2 TO R5 - SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 04.12.2024, R2 IS LR OF DECEASED R1)

THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE ABOVE CIVIL MISC. PETITION UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO PASS AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION I. APPOINT SOLE ARBITRATOR TO DETERMINE AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 15.09.2014 AS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE B AND WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

“i. APPOINT Sole Arbitrator to determine and adjudicate the dispute between the party's in accordance with arbitration clause 29 in agreement of Sale dated 15.09.2014 as produced as ANNEXURE B and with provisions of the arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.

ii. Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

iii. Award costs, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The petitioner and respondents had entered into an agreement of sale on 15.09.2014, which is governed by an arbitration clause, in terms of clause-29, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

“29. Any disputes / differences arising out of this Agreement for Sale shall be referred to Arbitrator and the same shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and shall be resolved within the Jurisdiction of Bangalore.”

3. For the reason that there was some dispute between the parties, the petitioner had issued notices to the respondents which went unreplied. Subsequently, the petitioner vide a Notice dated 28.10.2022, invoked the arbitration clause and nominated an Arbitrator. The same having not been agreed upon, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Notice having been issued to the respondents, though the respondents having been served, they are not been represented. However, it is been reported that respondent No.1 has expired and that respondent No.2 was treated as her legal heir vide order dated 04.12.2024.

5. The agreement of sale, not being in dispute, the property still continuing to be in the names of the respondents, as per the RTC which has been produced. This Court vide its order 03.03.2023 having considered the period of limitation, the arbitration clause made by the petitioner as being proper, an arbitrator would have been appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

6. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. CMP petition is Allowed ii. Sri.Ashwath Narayana, the former District Judge, of the District Judiciary is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties under th