IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. M/S R.K. INFRA AND ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 1-2-39/10 AND 11

5^TH FLOOR, R.K. ASOKA NIZAMPET ROAD, HYDERNAGAR KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD - 500 085 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. BITRAGUNTA RAVIKALYAN REDDY …APPELLANT (BY DR. VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SRIKANTHA RAO VEMUGANTI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

SRIDEVI S Location: 1. M/S THE SANDUR MANGANESE AND High Court IRON ORE LTD.

of Karnataka A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.9 "SANDUR HOUSE", BELLARY ROAD SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 080 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RISHIKESH MADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

13 (1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2024 PASSED IN COM.A.P.NO. 132/2023 BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-84), (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act], impugning an order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the learned Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Commercial Court], in COMAP.No.132/2023. The appellant had filed the said application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, for setting aside the arbitral award dated 31.08.2023 [impugned award] passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising the sole arbitrator [Arbitral Tribunal].

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of the disputes that had arisen between the parties in connection with the agreement dated 20.12.2010 for the construction of the Sandur –

Kumaraswamy Temple road [the Agreement]. In terms of the Agreement, respondent No.1 had engaged the appellant for the construction of a road of a length of about 12 kilometers from Sandur to Kumaraswamy temple. The entire work was agreed to be completed within six (06) months. The consideration for executing the scope of works as specified in the Agreement was agreed at `23,49,51,123/-, inclusive of taxes, other than service tax.

3. As per the agreed payment terms, 10% of the amount, i.e., `2,35,00,000/-, was required to be paid as a mobilisation advance. Out of the aforesaid amount, `1,00,00,000/- was already paid at the time of entering into the Agreement. The balance 90% of the price was required to be paid against progressive fortnightly running account bills, after deduction of 10%. The remaining 10% of the price was to be retained as a security and paid after the defect liability period, plus one (01) month.

4. The appellant did not complete the work within the time as stipulated. In the aforesaid circumstances, respondent No.1 issued notices dated 21.09.2011 and 05.01.2012, calling upon the appellant to complete the works. Despite the said notices, the work was not completed. Accordingly, respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 07.06.2012 terminating the contract.

5. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a claim before the Indian Council of Arbitration [ICA] in terms of the arbitration clause under the Agreement. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the arbitration clause. The same is reproduced below.

"Arbitration & applicable law:

Any dispute arising shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of Indian Council of Arbitration (the "ICA Rules") as amended and in force, from time to time. This contract shall be exclusively governed by Indian law."

6. There is no ambiguity in the arbitration clau