Karnataka High Court
M/S Yojaka India Private Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50373
CMP No. 86 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 86 OF 2024
BETWEEN
M/S YOJAKA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
D.NO.3-28/43, ABCO TRADE CENTRE
2ND FLOOR, N H 17, KOTTARA CHOWKI
MANGALORE
KARNATAKA
.... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAMURTHY S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
OF GOVERNMENT PORT AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
Digitally signed 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA INFASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT,
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF PORT AND INLAND WATER
COURT OF TRANSPORT
KARNATAKA
PORT AND FISHERIES DIVISION
UDUPI-576102
UDUPI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA STATE
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA) THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 R/W RULE 2 OF SCHEME FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR BY KARNATAKA HIGH COURT PRAYING TO APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR/PRESIDING ARBITRATOR UNDER SECTION 11(6)(B) OF -2- NC: 2025:KHC:50373 CMP No. 86 of 2024 HC-KAR THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, TO DECIDE THE DISPUTES/CLAIMS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 6.2.2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS CMP COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.11.2025, 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 Independent Arbitrator/Presiding Arbitrator under Section 11(6)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to decide the disputes/claims raised by the petitioner against the respondents as per agreement dated 6.2.2017 (Annexure-A);
b) Pay the cost of this Petition to the petitioner and
c) Grant such further or other relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case and thus render justice.
2. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner, being awarded the tender work of dredging, had raised several invoices which have not been paid, and it is in that background that the arbitration clause contained in the Agreement entered into between the parties has -3- NC: 2025:KHC:50373 CMP No. 86 of 2024 HC-KAR been invoked. Clause 4.1 of the said agreement reads as under:-
4.1 (a) In case of dispute or difference arising between the Employer and the Contractor relating to any matter arising out of or connected with this agreement, it shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The disputes or differences shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator shall be appointed by agreement between the parties, failing such agreement, by the Appointing Authority (any one of the Organizations as per list enclosed in Annexure).
(b) Arbitration proceedings shall be held at Udupi, Karnataka, India
(c) The cost and expenses of arbitration proceedings will be paid as determined by the Arbitrator. However, the expenses incurred by each party in connection with the preparation, presentation, etc., shall be borne by each party itself.
(d) Performance under the contract shall continue during the arbitration proceedings and payments due the Contractor by the Employer shall not be withheld, unless they are the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings."
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that any claim of the petitioner would be covered by the arbitration clause. There being a claim of 10 crores, which has been raised by the petitioner, the said claim would be required to be referred to arbitration. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:50373 CMP No. 86 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. Learned AGA by referring to the judgment of the National Green Tribunal, in Original Application No.71/2017 dated 27.09.2021, more particularly sub para (2) of para 46 thereof submits that the National Green Tribunal had levied a compensation of Rs.2,00,65,165/- on account of the works carried out by the petitioner without obtaining CRZ permission and permitted the Respondents to recover the same from the petitioner who was Respondent No.15 therein.
5. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was enquired with as regards whether the petitioner had obtained CRZ permission, he submits that it was the obligation on the respondents to obtain CRZ permission and as such, no amount could be deducted from the petitioner, despite works having been carried out by the petitioner.
6. I am unable to accept the said submission inasmuch as the petitioner could not have carried out works without ascertaining as to whether all the requisite permissions -5- NC: 2025:KHC:50373 CMP No. 86 of 2024 HC-KAR and sanctions were in place before carrying out such work. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner for any money when the NGT has levied compensation against the petitioner in my considered opinion cannot be referred to arbitration since it is relating to the said amount which had been directed to be paid as compensation by the Hon'ble NGT. In that view of the matter, the dispute between the parties has already been covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble NGT as aforesaid, and there is no ground made out for the appointment of any arbitrator.
7. Accordingly, the Petition stands dismissed.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1