IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 511 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. MR B BHASKER AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO 26 P.J.VINAYUAKA APARTMENT 4TH FLOOR FLAT NO 402 THAMBUCHETTY ROAD, COX TOWN BENGALURU 560005 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARADWAJ K R.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed 1. MRS SRIDEVI R by KIRAN KUMAR R AGDED ABOUT 42 YEARS Location: H IGH W/O MR. KRISHANA KUMAR COURT OF KARNATAKA NO 68/2 CHARLES CAMPBELL ROAD COX TOWN BANGALORE 560005

2. MR. K. YUVARAJ GOWDA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS S/O MR. KRISHNA KUMAR NO 68/2 CHARLES CAMPBELL ROAD, COX TOWN BANGALORE 560005

3. MR. RAJAN GOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS S/O MR. KRISHNA KUMAR (BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BYHIS NATURALL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO 1)

NO.68/2 CHARLES CAMPBELL ROAD, COX TOWN BANGALORE 560005 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE)

CIVIL MISC. PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT., PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS PER THE CLAUSE NO. 12 OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 25.11.2022 AT ANNEXURE A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

1. This Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed under Section

11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties to the petition in terms of Clause 12 of Memorandum of Understanding dated

25.11.2022 vide Annexure “A”.

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

3. The petitioner is the property developer/builder by profession engaged in construction activities having vast experience for more than 30 years. Having come to know of the petitioner's expertise in the above field, the respondents approached the petitioner and requested that they are the joint owners of the residential schedule property, and they intend to put up multi-dwelling residential apartment building thereon, and requested the petitioner to execute the apartment building project. The petitioner agreed to the proposal of the respondents and accordingly, the respondents and the petitioner initially entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 25.11.2022, prior to the execution and registration of the Joint Development Agreement. Under the said Memorandum of Understanding, it was agreed that the petitioner would develop the schedule property by constructing a residential apartment, after obtaining residential apartment building plan sanctioned from the BBMP Authorities. It was also agreed that undivided land in the schedule property would be shared as per the ratio of 40% to the respondents, and remaining 60% to the petitioner of the undivided land, and also the respondents demanded a sum of ₹1,50,00,000/- towards non-refundable amount executed towards a part performance of the contract.

4. The respondents have received a sum of ₹50,00,000/- as an advance amount, but inspite of same, the respondents have committed breach by not demolishing the existing house/building/structure as well as in facilitating to obtain the sanctioned building plan and thereafter, execute and register the Joint Development Agreement in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. In view of the breach of contract, a dispute arose between petitioner and the respondents compelling the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause at Clause (12) of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.11.2022, by suggesting the name of an Arbitrator through arbitration notice dated 14.07.2025.

5. Despite the service of Arbitration notice, the respondents have not replied to the arbitration notice nor suggested any alternate name of the Arbitrator.

Hence, this petition.

6. Court notice was issued to the respondents, despite service of notice, the respondents remained unrepresented.

7. Heard the arguments o