[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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
NC: 2025:KHC:50373
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
NC: 2025:KHC:50373
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:50373
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
NC: 2025:KHC:50373
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
