Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court's scope is limited to determining the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and an arbitral dispute.

Digitally signed

by KI RAN

KUMAR R SHANTHINAGAR,

Location: BENGALURU 560025

HIGH COURT

OF

KARNATAKA

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) AND (6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO APPOINT ANY ARBITRATOR AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR, AS PER CLAUSE 24 OF THE JDA DATED 04.11.2020 AT ANNEXURE B, FURTHER APPOINT A RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATING THE ABOVE DISPUTES AND FURTHER PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition, in terms of Clause 24 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 04.11.2020, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition are as follows:

3. The petitioners offered the schedule property to the respondents for Joint Development Agreement and agreed to sell, transfer and convey in favour of the respondents the proportionate undivided share etc., and the petitioners and the respondents have entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 04.11.2020. The same was registered. The petitioners have also executed a general power of attorney on the same day. It is contended that the respondents have committed a breach of terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement. The petitioners issued a legal notice to the respondents on 14.06.2024, however, the respondents did not adhere to it. There is an arbitration clause in the Joint Development Agreement, and a dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondents. The said dispute has to be resolved through an arbitration. The petitioners invoked the arbitration clause in the Joint Development Agreement by issuing an arbitration notice dated 13.05.2025 vide Annexure ‘E’. The respondents did not reply to the arbitration notice. Hence, this petition.

4. The respondents filed a statement of objections raising several grounds contending that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while considering a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, the Court is required to see whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement, and the arbitral dispute. The scope of Section 11(6) of the Act is very limited. He submits that the grounds raised by the respondents in the statement of objections can be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal.

7. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Managing Director, Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. and another v. Sanjay Kumar reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1604, and in the case of Vidya Drolia and others vs. Durga Trading Corporation , reported in (2021) 2 SCC 1. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no arbitral dispute. Hence, the question of referring the alleged arbit