[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Vijay Reddy vs Sri D Ramaswamy Reddy on 29 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
CMP No. 412 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 412 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. VIJAY REDDY
S/O JAYARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT THE HUB NO. 8/2 AND 9
AMBLIPURA, BELLANDRU
SARJAPURA MAIN RAOD
BANGALORE 560 103
2. BOOPESH REDDY
S/O JAYARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HIS
R/AT THE HUB NO. 8/2 AND 9
Digitally
signed by AMBLIPURA, BELLANDRU
KIRAN SARJAPURA MAIN RAOD
KUMAR R BANGALORE 560 103
Location: ...PETITIONERS
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. J M RAJANNA SETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI D RAMASWAMY REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1(A) SMT. SARASAMMA @ SARASU
W/O. LATE D. RAMASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
CMP No. 412 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/A. BALAGERE,
NEXT TO LATE HANUMA REDDY'S HOUSE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 087.
2. SRI MANJUNATH REDDY
S/O RAMASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
3. SRI SRINIVAS REDDY
S/O RAMASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
4. SRI SAMPANGI REDDY
S/O RAMASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
5. SMT. GIRIJAMMA
D/O RAMASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
6. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
D/O RAMASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
7. SMT. KANTHAMMA
D/O RAMASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT
BALAGERE, NEXT TO LATE HANUMA REDDY'S HOUSE
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE 560 087
8. M/S UDBHAV BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AWT
NO.34, RENUKA NILAYA
RAMAPURA MAIN ROAD
VIRGONAGAR POST
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
CMP No. 412 of 2024
HC-KAR
BANGALORE 560 049
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS
9. SRI SHEKAR G
S/O GURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO.34, RENUKA NILAYA
RAMAPURA MAIN ROAD
VIRGONAGAR POST
BANGALORE 560 049
10. SRI R M KANTHA KUMAR
S/O JMUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.34,
RENUKA NILAYA
RAMAPURA MAIN ROAD
VIRGONAGAR POST
BANGALORE 560 049
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYKUMAR S . PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SRIHARI A V, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A), R2 TO R4
SRI. RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7
SRI. D P MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R8
R9 & R10 ARE SERVED)
THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11 (6)
OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996.
PRAYING TO PASS ORDERS A) APPOINTING AN ARBITRATOR
AS PER THE ARBITRATION PARA PROVIDED IN 5TH AND 6TH
PAGE OF AGREEMENTS OF SALE DATED 27.10.2005 EXECUTED
BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF
LAND BEARING SY. NO.73/5 MEASURING 4 ACRES 7 GUNTAS
AND SY.NO.73/6 MEASURING 1 ACRE 33 GUNTAS OF
BALEGERE VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGLORE SOUTH
TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
CMP No. 412 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 short, 'the Act') for the appointment of an
arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties
to the petition as per Agreement of Sale dated
27.10.2005.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Civil
Miscellaneous Petition are as follows:
3. The land bearing Survey No.73/5 measuring 4 acres
7 guntas and Survey No.73/6 measuring 1 acre 33
guntas of Balegere Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk, belongs to the respondent and his
brothers Lakshmaiah Reddy and Venkataswamy
Reddy and they have entered into an agreement of
sale with the petitioners on 27.10.2005 for the
purpose of joint development of the said properties.
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
4. The petitioners filed Com.A.P. No.260 of 2022 on the
file of this Court against the order passed in A.A.
No.120 of 2020 seeking interim measures, for not to
alienate against respondent Nos.1 to 7.
5. On 04.07.2022, respondent Nos.1 to 7 entered into
Joint Development Agreement with M/s.Udhbav
Builders and Developers by virtue of registered Joint
Development Agreement regarding the property
bearing Survey Nos.73/5 measuring 23 guntas and
Survey No.73/6 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas and the
same is against the interest of the petitioners.
6. One Girijamma filed a suit in O.S. No.472 of 2006
seeking partition of the properties of D.Ramaswamy
Reddy, respondent No.1 herein and the said suit
came to be decreed; thereafter, R.A. No.13 of 2019
came to be filed before the learned District Judge
and the said appeal came to be withdrawn on
05.09.2022; thereby, though there is an agreement
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
entered into by the petitioners with respondent Nos.1
to 7, the transaction was not finalized because of the
litigation.
7. The petitioners invoked an arbitration clause by
issuing a arbitration notice on 09.10.2023. The
respondents did not come forward for appointment of
an arbitrator. The petitioners filed CMP No.6 of 2024
for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the
dispute in question, and the respondents took a
technical objection of not notifying the name of the
arbitrator in the legal notice and thereby, there is no
compliance of requirement of law in terms of Section
11(5) of the Act. The said petition was withdrawn
with a liberty to issue a fresh arbitration notice.
8. The petitioner issued an arbitration notice on
03.07.2024, notifying the name of the arbitrator and
calling upon the respondents to give consent for the
appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute in
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
question. The respondents have replied to the
arbitration notice raising untenable plea, and the
respondents have not come forward for the
appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, this petition.
9. Respondent Nos.1(a) to 4 filed a statement of
objections contending that the claim of the
petitioners is barred by limitation. It is also
contended that the petitioners arrayed the persons
who are not parties to the agreement. Accordingly,
prays to dismiss the petition against respondent
No.1(a) to 4.
10. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 filed a statement of
objections contending that respondent Nos.5 to 7 are
not parties to the agreement executed between the
petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 4. There is no
dispute between the petitioners and respondent
Nos.5 to 7. Hence, the petition filed by the
petitioners is not maintainable, and the same
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
deserves to be dismissed as against respondent
Nos.5 to 7.
11. Respondent No.8 filed a statement of objections
contending that respondent Nos.1 to 7 are the joint
owners of the properties in question and they have
entered into a Joint Development Agreement with
respondent No.8 on 04.07.2022 regarding Survey
Nos.73/9 and 73/6. It is contended that as per the
judgment and decree dated 16.03.2016 passed in
O.S. No.472 of 2006. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 were
allotted their respective legitimate shares in the
above said lands, and respondent No.8 has applied
for the approval of sanctioned plan and other
approvals as per law and respondent No.8 has
commenced the construction work as per the
sanctioned plan and the construction on the lands in
question has reached the completion stage.
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
12. It is contended that the initiation of the arbitration
proceedings regarding the lands in question after 20
years from the date of alleged unregistered
agreement of sale is barred by limitation. Hence,
prays to dismiss the petition.
13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, and the learned counsel for the
respondents.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 4 have entered
into a Sale Agreement on 27.10.2005 and
respondent Nos.1 to 7 did not perform their part of
the contract.
15. The petitioners filed a Commercial Application No.260
of 2022 before this Court against the order passed in
A.A.No.120 of 2020. Meanwhile, respondents Nos.1
to 7 have executed a Joint Development Agreement
in favour of respondent No.8 and he submitted that
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
the dispute arose between the petitioners and
respondent Nos.1 to 7, and the said dispute has to
be resolved through an arbitrator.
16. He submits that as far as limitation is concerned,
that issue has to be decided before the Arbitral
Tribunal and to buttress his arguments, he has
placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. BCL Secure Premises Private
Ltd.1, and Managing Director, Bihar State Food
and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Sanjay
Kumar2.
17. He also submits that although respondent Nos.5 to 7
are not signatory to the agreement for sale, even the
said aspect has to be raised before the Arbitral
Tribunal. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow
the petition.
2025 SCC Online SC 2746
2025 SCC Online SC 1604
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
18. Per contra, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior
Counsel for respondent Nos.1(a) to 4 submits that
the application filed by the petitioners for the
appointment of an arbitrator is barred by limitation.
He submits that respondent Nos.5 to 7 are not the
parties to the sale agreement and it does not bear
the signatures of respondent Nos.5 to 7. Hence, the
petition filed against respondent Nos.5 to 7 is not
maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
dismiss the petition.
19. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 submits
that respondent Nos.5 to 7 are not parties to the
agreement for sale, and there is no dispute between
the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 7. Hence,
on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.
20. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 submits that
the petition was filed after 20 years from the date of
execution of an unregistered sale agreement and
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
therefore, the claim made by the petitioners is
barred by limitation. Hence, on this ground, he prays
to dismiss the petition.
21. Perused the records, and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
22. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and
respondent Nos.1 to 4 have entered into a sale
agreement dated 27.10.2005 regarding the lands
bearing Survey Nos.73/5 and 73/6 and the dispute
arose between the petitioners and the respondents.
The petitioners approached the Commercial Court
seeking for an interim measure in A.A. No.120 of
2020 restraining respondent Nos.1 to 7 from
alienating the said properties. The said application
was rejected.
23. The petitioners filed a commercial A.P. No.260 of
2022 before this Court. Meanwhile, respondent Nos.1
to 7 entered into a Joint Development Agreement
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
with respondent No.8 by executing a registered Joint
Development Agreement dated 04.07.2022 regarding
the land bearing Survey Nos.73/5 and 73/6.
24. The petitioners filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.6
of 2024 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 27.06.2024 dismissed the petition as
withdrawn, reserving a liberty to the petitioners to
issue arbitration notice in terms of the Clause
mentioned in the agreement, and to proceed in
accordance with law.
25. After the disposal of the said Civil Miscellaneous
Petition No.6 of 2024, the petitioners issued an
arbitration notice on 03.07.2024, proposing the
name of an arbitrator. Respondent Nos.1 to 4
replied to the legal notice vide reply dated
06.08.2024, and other respondents also replied to
the legal notice vide reply notice dated 06.08.2024
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
and 05.08.2024 and contended that the initiating
arbitration proceedings is barred by time.
26. Admittedly, the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to
4 are parties to the arbitration agreement. As far as
the claim of the petitioners is concerned, as to
whether the claim was dead one or time barred claim
is to be decided by the arbitrator. The scope of
judicial intervention under Section 11 of the Act is
restricted to the situation that the judicial authorities
to find that arbitration agreement does exist or is
null and void. The scope of examination is now
confined only to the existence of the arbitration
agreement, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Uttrakhand Purva Sainik
Kalyana Nigama Ltd. v. Northern Coal Field
Ltd.3; the relevant portion is extracted as follows:
"7.13 In view of the provisions of Section
16, and the legislative policy to restrict
(2020) 2 SCC 455
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
judicial intervention at the pre-reference
stage, the issue of limitation would require
to be decided by the arbitrator. Sub-
section (1) of Section 16 provides that the
arbitral tribunal may rule on its own
jurisdiction, "including any objections"
with respect to the existence or validity of
the arbitration agreement. Section 16 is
as an inclusive provision, which would
comprehend all preliminary issues
touching upon the jurisdiction of the
arbitral tribunal. The issue of limitation is
a jurisdictional issue, which would be
required to be decided by the arbitrator
under Section 16, and not the High Court
at the pre-reference stage under Section
11 of the Act. Once the existence of the
arbitration agreement is not disputed, all
issues, including jurisdictional objections
are to be decided by the arbitrator."
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the issue of
limitation is a jurisdictional issue, which would be
required to be decided by the arbitrator under
Section 16 of the Act, and not the High Court at the
pre-reference stage under Section 11 of the Act.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
Once the existence of the Arbitration Agreement is
not disputed, all issues, including the jurisdictional
objections, are to be decided by the Arbitrator.
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) has held that
the scope of jurisdiction of referral Court, hearing a
Section 11 petition, when faced with an issue of a
joinder of a non-signatory to the arbitration
agreement, has been lucidly set out by the five
Benches of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Cox and Kings
Ltd. v. SAP India. Pvt. Ltd. and another4. The
Hon'ble Apex Court also held that if the referral Court
prima facie arrives at the satisfaction that a non-
signatory is a veritable party, then only the Arbitral
Tribunal is not denuded of its jurisdiction to decide
whether non-signatory is indeed a party to the
Arbitration Agreement on the basis of factual
evidence and application of legal doctrine.
(2024) 4 SCC 1
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
29. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aslam
Ismail Khan Deshmuk v. ASAP Fluids Private
Limited and another5 has held in paragraph 43 as
follows:
"43. Therefore, while determining the
issue of limitation in the exercise of
powers under Section 11(6) of the Act,
1996, the referral court must only
conduct a limited enquiry for the
purpose of examining whether the
Section 11(6) application has been
filed within the limitation period of
three years or not. At this stage, it
would not be proper for the referral
court to indulge in an intricate
evidentiary enquiry into the question of
whether the claims raised by the
petitioner are time barred. Such a
determination must be left to the
decision of the arbitrator."
30. From the perusal of paragraph 43 of the aforesaid
judgment, it discloses that the Referral Court must
(2025) 1 SCC 502
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
only conduct a limited enquiry for the purpose of
examining whether Section 11(6) application has
been filed within limitation of 3 years or not. At that
stage, it would not be proper for the Referral Court
to indulge in an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the
question of whether the claim raised by the
petitioners are time-barred. Such a determination
must be left to the decision of the Arbitrator.
31. Considering the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Aslam Ismail Khan
Deshmuk, Uttrakhand Purvi Sainik Kalyan
Nigam Ltd., and Hindustan Industrial Petroleum
Corporation Ltd., (supra), the issue of limitation
and misjoinder of necessary parties cannot be
considered at the stage of considering an application
under Section 11 of the Act, and the contentions of
the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1(a)
to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to
7 cannot be accepted, for the reasons stated above.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
32. Admittedly, there is an Arbitration Clause in both the
agreements (which reads same), which is extracted
as follows:
"GOVERNING LAW AND ARBITRATION
This Agreement shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with laws
of India.
Disputes between the First Party and
Second Party:
All or any disputes, controversies and
differences of opinion, between the First
Party and/or any constituent of the First
Party and the Second Party which is any
manner - directly or indirectly arise out of,
concern or relate to or are connected with
this AGREEMENT including its breach or
interpretation which cannot be settled
amicably between the parties shall be
referred to arbitration by an Arbitrator
appointed by the Second Party. The Sole
Arbitrator shall decide the disputes in
accordance with the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act. 1996 or any
amendments, modifications, statutory
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
enactments or re-enactments thereto and
applicable India Laws. The seat of
arbitration shall be Bangalore and the
proceedings shall be conducted in English
by a sole Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall as
far as possible pronounce his Final Award
within 30 days of entering reference and
the parties shall co-operate. The Award
shall be final and binding, upon the
parties.
Disputes between the First Party inter
se.
All or any disputes, controversies and
differences of opinion between the first
party inter-se which in any manner -
directly or indirectly arise out of, concern
or relate to or are connected with or
impact this AGREEMENT including its
breach or interpretation which cannot be
settled amicably between the parties shall
be decided by Mr.Boopesh Reddy, S/o
Mr.S.Javaram Reddy, having his office at
No.49, 27th Main, BTM Layout 1st stage,
Bangalore 560068. Mr.Boopesh Reddy,
acting as the Sole Arbitrator shall decide
the disputes in accordance with the
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
Arbitration and conciliation Act. 1996 or
any amendments, modifications, statutory
enactments or re-enactments thereto and
applicable India Laws. The seat of
arbitration shall be Bangalore and the
proceedings shall be conducted in English
by a sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall
as far as possible pronounce his Final
Award within 30 days of entering
reference and the parties shall Co-
operate. The award shall be final and
binding upon the parties.
Without prejudice to the Arbitral
Agreement, the Courts in Bangalore alone
shall have jurisdiction in respect of any
disputes arising out of the agreement. "
33. The arbitral dispute arose between the petitioners
and respondents, and the same has to be resolved
through an arbitrator. Therefore, the petitioners have
made out a ground to refer the dispute to the
arbitration. Accordingly, I answer the point in the
affirmative.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
34. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following order:
ORDER
(I) This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
allowed.
(II) Hon'ble Mr.Justice Anand
Byrareddy, Retired Judge, High
Court of Karnataka, is nominated
as an Arbitrator to resolve the
dispute(s) between the petitioners
and the respondents in terms of
the arbitration Clauses of the
agreements dated 27.10.2005, as
per the provisions of Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the
Rules.
(III) The Registry is directed to forward
a copy of this order to the learned
Arbitrator, and the Director of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Centre,
Bangalore.
(IV) All the contentions of the parties,
including the issue of limitation
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5081
HC-KAR
and the claim against respondent
Nos.5 to 8, are kept open.
(V) The Registry is directed to return
the original and/or certified copies,
if produced, to the respective
parties who have produced it/them
by following due procedure.
(VI) Pending application/s, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
CT:KHV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
