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. 50 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

K A RAGHAVENDRA SON OF SRI K N ASHWATHANARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 760, KRISHNA, 1^ST MAIN, 7^TH BLOCK, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V BHAT., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT RAJAMMA Digitally signed WIFE OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, by KIRAN AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, KUMAR R Location: H IGH

2. M N DHARMAVRATHA COURT OF KARNATAKA SON OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 3. M N PRIYA DATTA SON OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. M N SHARANARTHI SON OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 5. M N PARANJYOTHI SON OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 6. SMT M N GAYATHRI DARSHINI DAUGHTER OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 7. SMT M N THEJASWINI DAUGHTER OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 8. SMT M N DIVYA DARSHINI DAUGHTER OF SRI NARAYAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT POORNA HORTICULTURE, 2^ND MAIN, 47^TH CROSS, 8^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 082

9. SMT BHAGYA WIFE OF SRI ASHOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1573, K R ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, MANDYA 571 401.

…RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 08.01.2026 SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R1 TO R9 IS D/S)

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR FOR RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS THAT HAVE ARISEN UNDER THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED APRIL 21, 2007, VIDE ANNEXURE A PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ARBITRATION CLAUSE 23 AND ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996.

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

*****

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner filed this civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for short) to appoint an Arbitrator for the resolution of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents that have arisen under the memorandum of understanding dated 21.04.2007 vide Annexure-A.

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

2.1. Sri. M.N.Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 as prospective owners and the petitioner as a proposed developer of the scheduled property, had to perform a certain tasks in the memorandum of understanding executed between them on 21.04.2007 (‘MOU’ for short). The MOU clearly provides that the parties should enter into a joint development agreement, the major terms and conditions whereof have been spelt out in the MOU itself, within 10 days from the date of obtaining the sale deeds from the BDA, and to enable the petitioner to perform the tasks that he had undertaken as mentioned in the MOU, the prospective owners executed an instrument of general power of attorney, but due to unfathomable reasons that they put forth, the said instrument was not registered. The BDA issued a notice to Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 calling upon them to show cause as to why the schedule properties should not be resumed on the ground that they had violated the conditions of the allotment and the lease-cum-sale agreements executed between them and the BDA. The petitioner had to get Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 to approach this Court. This Court had quashed the said notice and the petitioner was able to secure the sale deeds in July 2013 regarding item No.1 and in April 2014 regarding item Nos.2 and 3 of the schedule properties. Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 would have to refund the petitioner a sum of ₹25,00,000/- and they promised to refund the said amount. Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and 9 did not come forward to complete the mandatory stage of executing the joint development agreement. Petitioner issued a legal notice. Despite service of notice, Sri. Narayana Das, respondent Nos.1 and