Karnataka High Court
M/S Railone Projects Pvt Ltd vs Government Of India on 30 September, 2020
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.138/2018
Between:
M/s. Railone Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director,
Mr. B.V.V. Krishna Reddy,
Son of Sri Venkateswara Reddy,
Aged about 34 years,
Having its office at
H.No.8-2-268/1/D/B/S2, 558,
Swarna Heights, Arora Colony,
Road No.3, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad - 500 034. ... Petitioner
(By Sri L.M. Chidanandayya, Advocate)
And:
1. Government of India,
Department of Railways,
Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
Represented by its
Secretary, Railways.
2. The Chief Administrative Officer
Construction
South Western Railway
2
No.18, Millers Road,
Bangalore - 560 046.
3. The General Manager,
South Western Railway,
3rd Floor, East Wing,
Rail Soudha,
Gadag Road,
Hubballi - 580 020. ... Respondents
(By Sri Abhinay Y.T., Advocate for R1 to R3)
*****
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under
Section 11(5) & 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, praying to appoint independent neutral
arbitrator in terms of Clause No.27 of the Special
Conditions of Contract and Clause No.64.1 of General
Conditions of Contract of Bid document in terms of the
Agreement dated 05.06.2012 bearing
No.CAO/CN/BNC/73479/A/49/VI/2012 vide
Annexure-A, who is having sound technical and
contractual knowledge in the matter of construction
contract to adjudicate the dispute between the
petitioner and the respondents in the interest of justice.
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for
admission this day, the Court made the following:
3
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for appointment of an Arbitrator by invoking Clause-27 of the agreement dated 05.06.2012, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A.
2. It is submitted that on a previous occasion the matter had been taken up before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.257/2020 (arising out of SLP(C) No.11957/2019) whereby leave was granted and impugned judgment was set aside restoring the Section 11 petition pending before this Court. It was however made clear that the procedure for appointment of Arbitrator was not touched upon.
3. After hearing the matter for some time, both the learned counsels would point out that all contentions raised by the petitioner herein have been adverted to in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint 4 Venture Company reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 1635. In light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in particular with respect to adherence to the procedure in terms of Section 64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract and taking note of the directions of Apex Court, the third respondent General Manager, South Western Railway is required to send a panel of at least names of retired Railway Officers who are empanelled to work as Railway Arbitrators to the contractor within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Thereafter the petitioner contractor is required to exercise his choice of suggesting two names as his nominees. Within a period of 30 days, the General Manager will appoint at least one as contractors nominee and the General Manager will exercise his choice by nominating the balance number of Arbitrators indicating the name of Presiding Arbitrator from amongst the three Arbitrators so appointed. The General Manager is to complete the 5 exercise of constituting Arbitral Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of names of contractor's nominee.
4. Accordingly, in light of consent of both the parties, the petition is disposed off in light of the directions made above clarifying that the procedure under Section 64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract to be adhered to while constituting the Arbitral Tribunal, taking note of the direction of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.257/2020 (arising out of SLP(C) No.11957/2019).
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR