Karnataka High Court
Sri Gurunath Reddy vs M/S Brahmall Developers Pvt Ltd on 4 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30014
CMP NO.62 OF 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.62 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. GURUNATH REDDY
S/O LATE G. SRINIVASA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT:
A1301, SETHNA POWER TOWER,
CHELKERE, BABUSAPALYA,
AGARA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND G.P.A. HOLDER
SMT. LEELAVATHY G.S REDDY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.K. SHRIKARA, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA M/S. BRAHMALL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
Location: HIGH REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MR. KEKOO SOLI SETHNA,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
KENSINGTON GARDENS,
NO.13, KENSINGTON ROAD,
ULSOOR,
BENGALURU - 560 042.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30014
CMP NO.62 OF 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,
1996, PRAYING TO INVOKE THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE AT
CLAUSE 26 OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED
29TH NOVEMBER, 2004 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND TO CONFIRM
THE APPOINTMENT OF SRI. BASAVARAJ TADHAL, RETIRED
DISTRICT JUDGE UNDER THE AEGIS OF THE ARBITRATION
CENTRE-KARNATAKA (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL)
BENGALURU, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR OR ANY OTHER
SUITABLE PERSON FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIMS OF THE
PARTIES AS PER THE NOTICE DATED 12TH NOVEMBER, 2024
VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of sole
Arbitrator for resolving the claim of the parties in terms of the
Notice dated 12th November, 2024 (Annexure-K).
2. The facts in nutshell for adjudication of this petition
are that the father of the petitioner viz., late G. Srinivasa Reddy
had acquired the Schedule-A property through Partition Deed
dated 30th July, 1942. The father of the petitioner and the
respondent have entered into a Joint Development Agreement
dated 29th November, 2004 (Annexure-B) for construction of
multi-storied commercial/residential complex. On the very
NC: 2025:KHC:30014
CMP NO.62 OF 2025
HC-KAR
same date, the registered General Power of Attorney was
executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the
respondent to enable the respondent to get the required
permission from the statutory authorities for development of the
schedule property. It is forthcoming from the petition that the
Supplemental Area Sharing Agreement dated 12th December,
2012 (Annexure-E) was entered into between the father and
mother of the petitioner with the respondent which is not a
registered document. It is also stated in the petition that the
father of the petitioner conveyed the residential converted land
to an extent of 14.6 guntas covered under the Schedule-A
property to the respondent as per the registered Sale Deed
dated 13th October, 2006 (Annexure-D). In the meanwhile, on
account of the dispute arisen between the parties in respect of
the development of the schedule property, the petitioner herein
issued notice dated 12th November, 2024 (Annexure-K) calling
upon the respondent to cancel the Joint Development
Agreement dated 29th November, 2004 (Annexure-B), however,
the respondent did not replied for the said notice. Hence, the
petitioner is before this Court, seeking appointment of Arbitrator
NC: 2025:KHC:30014
CMP NO.62 OF 2025
HC-KAR
under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996.
3. Heard Sri. P.K. Shrikara, learned counsel on behalf
of Smt. Nidhi M. Patil, appearing for the petitioner and Sri. L.M.
Chidanandayya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Sri. P.K. Shrikara, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the Joint
Development Agreement dated 29th November, 2004
(Annexure-B), wherein, the parties have entered into an
agreement for developing the entire extent of 3 acre 26 guntas
in Survey No.50 of Chelekere Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk (now called as Bengaluru East Taluk).
It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
that the respondent had developed the portion of land in
question and certain extent of land has not been developed. He
also invited the attention of the Court to registered General
Power of Attorney dated 29th November, 2004 (Annexure-C)
and submitted that, there is default on the part of the
respondent to develop the entire extent of land as specified in
the Joint Development Agreement mentioned above.
NC: 2025:KHC:30014
CMP NO.62 OF 2025
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited
the attention of the Court to Supplemental Area Sharing
Agreement dated 12th December, 2012 (Annexure-E) and
contended that the rights of the parties contained in Joint
Development Agreement are merged with the Supplemental
Area Sharing Agreement. Therefore, he refers to the dispute
mentioned in the legal notice dated 25th October, 2014
(Annexure-F) and 12th November, 2024 (Annexure-K) and
sought for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. Per contra, Sri. L.M. Chidanandayya, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent raised the plea of
limitation for appointment of Arbitrator to resolve the dispute
between the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent contended that the Joint Development Agreement
has been entered into between the parties during the year-2004
and the Supplemental Area Sharing Agreement has been
entered into between the parties during the year-2012 and
therefore, the claim made by the petitioner herein is barred by
limitation since, the petitioner has not taken steps for
NC: 2025:KHC:30014
CMP NO.62 OF 2025
HC-KAR
appointment of Arbitrator giving effect to the Joint Development
Agreement as well as the Supplemental Area Sharing
Agreement.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
referring to the registered Sale Deed dated 13th October, 2006
(Annexure-D) executed by the father of the petitioner in favour
of the respondent, contended that the petitioner had
approached this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.351 of
2022 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, seeking appointment of Arbitrator and in view of the
plea raised by the respondent on limitation, the petitioner has
withdrawn the Civil Miscellaneous Petition to comply with the
requirements under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. He further contended the petitioner has
filed Original Suit No.25709 of 2024 before the City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru, seeking relief of declaring the Joint Development
Agreement dated 29th November, 2004 (Annexure-B) as void
agreement and withdrawn the said suit and again filed the
present petition, seeking appointment of Arbitrator for second
NC: 2025:KHC:30014
CMP NO.62 OF 2025
HC-KAR
time and therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the present petition.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
further places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKH vs.
ASAP FLUIDS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER reported in (2025)1
SCC 502, particularly by referring to the paragraphs 33, 43 and
48 therein submitted that the petition requires to be dismissed
on the ground of limitation.
9. In the light of submission made by learned counsel
appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the Joint
Development Agreement dated 29th November, 2004
(Annexure-B) was entered into between the father of the
petitioner and the respondent to develop the property
mentioned in the schedule to the petition. On the very same
date, father of the petitioner executed the General Power of
Attorney in favour of the respondent to get required permission
from the statutory authorities for development of the schedule
property. It is also to be noted that the registered Sale Deed
dated 13th October, 2006 (Annexure-D) has been executed by
NC: 2025:KHC:30014
CMP NO.62 OF 2025
HC-KAR
the father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent to an
extent of 14.6 guntas out of 3 acre 26 guntas of the schedule
property.
10. In the backdrop of these aspects, the legal notice
dated 25th October, 2014 (Annexure-F) issued on behalf of the
petitioner to the respondent to terminate the Joint Development
Agreement dated 29th November, 2004 is to be considered for
assessing the period of limitation in the present petition. It is
also to be noted that, father of the petitioner died on 25th
March, 2023 as per the Death Certificate produced at Annexure-
G and the petitioner has approached this Court in Civil
Miscellaneous Petition No.351 of 2022, seeking appointment of
Arbitrator. For the same, the respondent filed objections and
raised the issue relating to the limitation stating that the
petitioner has sought for giving effect to the Joint Development
Agreement and there is a lapse of seventeen years in taking
action for appointment of Arbitrator to resolved the dispute and
accordingly, the appointment of Arbitrator cannot be made at
this juncture. The respondent has also urged for consideration
the Notice dated 21st September, 2012 issued by the father of
NC: 2025:KHC:30014
CMP NO.62 OF 2025
HC-KAR
the petitioner. In that view of the matter, on careful
examination of the averments made in the petition, the same
would not disclose the filing of Original Suit No.25709 of 2024
(Annexure-R2) filed by the petitioner, seeking relief of declaring
the Joint Development Agreement dated 29th November, 2004
as void agreement. Therefore, if the appointment of Arbitrator
is made under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 in the present petition, the same would go against the
period specified in the Limitation Act and contrary to the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASLAM
ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKH (supra) and in the case of ARIF
AZIM COMPANY LTD. vs. APTECH LIMITED reported in
(2024)5 SCC 313. In that view of the matter, I am of the view
that the petition cannot be accepted at this stage as the claim
made by the petitioner, seeking appointment of Arbitrator is
barred by limitation. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
