B Veerappa, J. - The petitioner has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short hereinafter referred to as the) to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in terms of the Joint Development Agreement dated 19.4.2013, Annexure-A entered into between the parties.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the properties bearing No. 532, 533, 534 and 535 present BBMP Khata No. 217/532, 217/573, 217/534 and 217/535 carved out of converted property bearing Sy.No.217 situated at Begur Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, totally measuring 11,122.50 Sq.Ft. He entered into Joint Development Agreement on 19.4.2013 with the respondent-Firm wherein respondent No.1-Firm agreed to develop the said properties as a residential Multi-Storied Apartment Building. The petitioner in furtherance of the Joint Development Agreement dated 19.4.2013 executed a Registered General Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent-firm. It is further contended that the respondent-firm undertook to obtain necessary Power Connection, BWSSB Water Connection from the competent authority and to execute individual khatha in each of the flats in the Apartment Building as per the BBMP which work is also not completed by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner is not able to enjoy the property legally. There were wide disputes among himself and the respondent-firm for compliance of the terms of the Joint Development Agreement dated 19.4.2013, Annexure-A. It is further contended that Clause-25 of the Registered Joint Development Agreement provides for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration, but inspite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, respondents have not complied with the terms and conditions of the said Agreement entered into between the parties. Therefore, the petitioner issued legal notice on 7.2.2018 to the 1st respondent-firm, but the respondent-firm did not comply with the terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

4. Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Counsel for the along with Smt. Rakshitha. D.J., learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute with regard to Registered Joint Development Agreement entered into between the parties on 19.4.2013, but there are conditions to be fulfilled by the respondentfirm in terms of the Joint Development Agreement by obtaining necessary power and water connections from the competent authorities and further undertaking given for getting individual khatha to each of the flats in the Apartment building. Inspite of undertaking given, the respondents have not considered the request of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is invoking Clause- 25 of the Registered Joint Development Agreement which resolves the disputes by way of Arbitration. It is further contended that the petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 7(5) of theby issuing legal notice and the same was received by the respondents and in the reply sent through E-mail, it is only stated that they have discussed and have come to the conclusion that they shall fulfill all pending works along with a mutual inspection with the architect. The learned Counsel would further contend that except the said reply, the respondents have not complied with the terms of the abovesaid agreement. Therefore, sought to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

5. Per contra, Sri S.G. Lokesh, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there are other disputes facts which cannot be decided by this Court. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. He also contended that as per the Joint Development Agreement, if there is any breach by either of the parties, the other party (aggrieved party) shall be entitled to the specific performance and also entitled for recovery of all losses and expenses incurred as a consequence of such breach committed from the party committing breach. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the owner of the properties are question bearing Nos.532, 533, 534 and 535 present BBMP Khata Nos. 217/532, 217/573, 217/534 and 217/535 carved out of converted property bearing Sy.No.217 situated at Begur Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, totally measuring 11,122.50 Sq. Ft. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondents entered into a Registered Joint Development Agreement on 19.4.2013 to develop the subject property as a residential Multi- Storied Apartment Building. It is also not in dispute that there is an arbitration clause in the Joint Development Agreement i.e., Clause - 25 which provides for resolving the dispute which reads as under:

"25. In the event of breach of the terms of this Agreement or in the event of any differences or disputes arising between the parties in regard to this Agreement or any matter relating thereto, the same shall be referred to and settled by Arbitration under the Provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in force under the Bangalore Courts Jurisdiction."

7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has issued legal notice as contemplated under the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 7 of theon 7.2.2018. The respondents have replied through Mail stating that they have discussed and have come to the conclusion that they shall fulfill all pending works along with a mutual inspection with the architect and hence, arbitration is unnecessary.

8. Though the Registered Joint Development Agreement entered into is as along back as on 19.4.2013 and legal notice was issued on 7.2.2018, as on today, nothing has happened and the dispute is not settled in terms of the Joint Development Agreement entered into between the parties. Though a contention was raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the aggrieved party has an alternative remedy under clause 20 of the Joint Development Agreement, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to the specific performance, the fact remains that that the agreement, arbitration clause in the agreement and compliance of Sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are not in dispute. Hence, there is no impediment for the Court to appoint the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

9. For the reasons stated above, civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. The Honble Sri Justice Chandrashekaraiah, Former Judge of this Court, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in terms of Clause-25 of the Registered Joint Development Agreement dated 19.3.2013 entered into between the parties in accordance with law.

10. All the contentions raised by the parties are left open to be urged before the learned Arbitrator.

11. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to The Honble Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah, Former Judge of this Court as well as to the Arbitration Centre, forthwith, for reference.