IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 243 OF 2023 BETWEEN KNK CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KNK NEXGEN CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD)

NO 19, 33^RD A CROSS

11^TH MAIN BANGALORE 560041 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR MR DARSHAN PUSHPARAJ …. PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ANUPAMA G. HEBBAR., ADVOCATE)

AND M/S MODERN ASSET A PARTNERSHIP FIRM BEARING REGISTRATION NO GNR/449/2012-13 HAVING OFFICE AT NO 23, Digitally signed 4F SANKEY SQUARE by SHWETHA SANKEY ROAD RAGHAVENDRA LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS Location: HIGH BENGALURU 560003 COURT OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PARTNER MR KUNAL B GOWDA …. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA., SR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE )

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 READ WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR, WHO IS FORMER HONBLE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN KARNATAKA AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT, TOWARDS CONSTITUTION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL FOR ADJUDICATION UPON ALL THE CLAIMS AND DISPUTES OF THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, THROUGH THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, BENGALURU PURSUANT TO THE CLAUSE NO. 19.13 OF THE CC DATED 09.07.2018 .AND ETC.

THIS CMP COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.12.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CAV ORDER

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

(a) Appoint an arbitrator, who is former Honble Judge of the District Court in Karnataka as this Honble Court may deem fit, towards constitution of arbitral tribunal for adjudication upon all the claims and disputes of the Petitioner against the Respondent, through the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru pursuant to the clause No. 19.13 of the CC dated 09.07.2018 (b) Award costs (c) Grant such other relief(s) that this Hon’ble High Court deems fit, in the interests of justice and equity.

2. The Respondent is stated to have floated a tender for the construction of an office building located at Sy.No.2/2, Venkatala Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru. The Petitioner, having bid for the same, was declared successful and awarded the tender. The Letter of Intent (LOI) came to be issued on 7.5.2018, and the Letter of Award (LOA) came to be issued on 28.5.2018, confirming the acceptance of the bid of the Petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,33,68,56,000/-.

3. Thereafter, a contract was entered into on 9.7.2018, which included the Conditions of Contract (CC). The scope of work for the Petitioner's services was contained in the above documents, more fully described in the drawings, specification, bill of quantities.

4. Respondent initially made a payment of a sum of Rs.3,06,01,970/- as mobilisation advance to the Petitioner, in pursuance of which, the Petitioner furnished a bank guarantee against such advance payment, which was required to be kept alive until the entire advance payment was repaid/adjusted. The Petitioner furnished a mobilisation bank guarantee on 23.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,56,13,250/-. The agreement stipulated that 5% of all payments made to the Petitioner would be retained till completion of the defect liability period, that is, twelve months.

5. The Petitioner claims to have commenced the work on 1.6.2018 and carried out the work in an efficient manner, and alleges that there are certain delays and defaults on the part of the Respondent as well as variations in the scope of works. The time period, therefore, was extended until 31.12.2019. The Petitioner claims that 95% of the work had been completed, and at that stage, when the balance of the work was in the process of being completed on 9.1.2020, the Respondent issued a notice alleging breach on the part of the Petitioner and called upon the Petitioner to reme