Court invokes Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, directing retired District Judge to arbitrate claims exceeding Rs. 2.53 crore after respondent's failure to participate
In a significant ruling on 8th October 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Mr. H.T. Narendra Prasad, J., appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a construction contract awarded by the Chief Engineer (Air Force), Bengaluru to M/s Varsha Constructions, Raipur. The contract involved the construction of an Academic Block at the Air Force Technical College, Jalahalli, Bengaluru.
The petitioner, M/s Varsha Constructions, completed the work and submitted a final bill amounting to Rs. 2,53,33,586, covering additional works, escalation, prolongation expenses, and other contractual dues. The respondents, however, declined to admit the claims, leading to a dispute under the terms of the Construction Agreement dated 13 February 2018, which included an arbitration clause under Condition 70.
The petitioner duly invoked the arbitration clause by serving multiple notices under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on 13 June 2024, 30 September 2024, and 6 February 2025. Despite proper service, the respondents neither responded nor appeared before the Court, prompting the petitioner to file a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, seeking the Court's intervention to appoint a Sole Arbitrator.
Highlighting the comprehensive arbitration clause, which mandated all disputes be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the designated authority, the Court found that the petitioner's invocation of arbitration was justified and procedurally correct. Given the respondent's failure to cooperate or appoint an arbitrator, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) to appoint Smt. Prabhavathi Hiremath, a retired District Judge, as the Sole Arbitrator.
The Court ordered that the arbitration proceedings be conducted at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, following the Centre's rules. The judgment left all claims and contentions of the parties open for determination by the arbitrator. The parties were directed to appear before the Director of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre on 12 November 2026 to commence arbitration proceedings.
This ruling reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to expeditious resolution of contractual disputes through arbitration, particularly when one party defaults on participating. It also underscores the binding nature of arbitration clauses in government contracts and the Court's proactive role in facilitating dispute resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Bottom Line:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Where construction agreement contains arbitration clause and petitioner has invoked arbitration by issuing notices under Section 21, and respondent despite service neither responds nor appoints arbitrator, Court can appoint sole arbitrator for adjudication of disputes.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 11(6), 21
M/s Varsha Constructions v. Chief Engineer (Air Force), (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998874
