Mr L Ramdev vs. G ' Corp Buildwell Private Limited
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mr. L Ramdev, filed a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. The dispute arises from a Joint Development Agreement dated 30.09.2013, entered into with G'Corp Buildwell Private Limited (respondent) for developing a property. The agreement stipulated that the respondent would develop the project and deliver 38% of the saleable constructed area to the landowners. The petitioner was allotted sixteen residential apartments. However, the respondent withheld possession of one apartment (A-206) and four car parking spaces, citing alleged Service Tax/GST liabilities and statutory utility deposits, which the petitioner contends is not permissible under the agreement. Disputes subsequently arose, leading the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause.
Held
The Court held that a Sole Arbitrator is required to be appointed for the adjudication of the disputes between the parties. This decision was based on the existence of an arbitration clause within the Joint Development Agreement, which clearly provides for the resolution of disputes arising between the parties. The Court noted that the petitioner had duly invoked this arbitration clause by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent's submission that they had no objection to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator further supported this conclusion. Consequently, the Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Krishna Bhat, Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as the Sole Arbitrator. The Court explicitly stated that all claims and contentions of the parties are left open for the arbitrator to decide. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and the appointed Arbitrator, and parties were directed to appear before the Director of the Centre.
Key Issues
1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the Joint Development Agreement dated 30.09.2013, in terms of Clause 33 of the said agreement, pursuant to Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that disputes have arisen concerning the Joint Development Agreement and that the arbitration clause (Clause 33) provides for the resolution of such disputes through arbitration. The petitioner had issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act, and the respondent's reply was unsatisfactory, necessitating the filing of the present petition for the appointment of an arbitrator. Respondent's contention: The respondent's counsel submitted that the respondent had no objection to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator and that all contentions of the parties may be left open for adjudication by the arbitrator.
Sections Cited
Section 11(5), Section 21
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the parties under the Joint Development Agreement dated 30.09.2013, particularly in terms of Clause 33 thereof, produced at Annexure-D.
The brief facts of the case are that the Joint Development Agreement dated 30.09.2013 executed between the petitioner and the respondent for development of the property bearing Sy.Nos.46/2 and 46/3 situated at Kothihosahalli Village, Kodigehalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The petitioner and late Mr.Jayadev had initially entered into a HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010384052026 NC: 2026:KHC:54031 Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.03.2011 with G:Corp Developer Private Limited, pursuant to which the respondent was nominated as the developer by a Board Resolution dated 21.09.2013. Under the Joint Development Agreement, the landowners agreed to convey 62% of undivided share in the schedule property in favour of the respondent, in consideration of which the respondent agreed to develop the project and deliver 38% of the saleable constructed area with proportionate car parking spaces to the landowners. The building plan was sanctioned by BBMP on 10.11.2014 and an Area Sharing- cum-Demarcation Agreement was executed on 05.09.2015. The petitioner was allotted sixteen residential apartments along with proportionate car parking spaces under the GML Handing Over Agreement dated 17.02.2020. Despite the Occupancy Certificate being issued on 04.01.2018, the possession was delayed till February 2020. Out of the sixteen apartments, Apartment No.B-203 was sold by the petitioner and, out of the HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010384052026 NC: 2026:KHC:54031 remaining fifteen apartments, possession of fourteen apartments was handed over. The respondent withheld the possession of Apartment No.A-206 along with four car parking spaces on the alleged ground of Service Tax/GST liabilities and statutory utility deposits, which, according to the petitioner, is not permissible under the said agreements. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties in relation to the said Joint Development Agreement.
As the disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner, invoking the arbitration clause contained in the Joint Development Agreement, issued a notice dated 02.02.2026, vide Annexure-J, to the respondent under Section 21 of the Act. The said arbitration clause 33 reads as under:
“33. ARBITRATION
1 In the event of any dispute or differences arising in connection with this Agreement or any other related document and which cannot be settled mutually through HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010384052026 NC: 2026:KHC:54031 negotiations, shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 33.2 The arbitration shall be submitted to the sole arbitrator, who shall be appointed by mutual agreement between the Owners and the Developer.
3 The decision of the arbitrator shall be rendered in writing and shall be binding upon the parties hereto. The parties shall bear their respective costs, charges and expenses of the arbitration. Such arbitration shall be held in Bangalore and shall be conducted in English language.”
The respondent sent a reply dated 04.03.2026 vide Annexure-K to the said notice. Being dissatisfied with the reply, the present petition is filed seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has no objection to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator and that all the contentions of the parties may be left open. HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010384052026 NC: 2026:KHC:54031
Having regard to the existence of the arbitration clause contained in the Joint Development Agreement, which provides for resolution of disputes arising between the parties, and the fact that the petitioner has duly invoked the said arbitration clause by issuing notice under Section 21 of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that a Sole Arbitrator is required to be appointed for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
Accordingly, the following: ORDER a) Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
b) Hon’ble Mr.Justice P.Krishna Bhat, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in the present case to arbitrate the disputes between the parties at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre. HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010384052026 NC: 2026:KHC:54031 c) All the claims and contentions of the parties are left open.
d) Registry is directed to communicate this order via e-mail to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, and also to the Hon’ble Mr.Justice P.Krishna Bhat, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka.
e) Registry is directed to return all the original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.
f) Parties are directed to appear before the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru, on 29.10.2026 at 11:30 a.m.
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE
HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.